STATE v. WILSON (2026)

[¶1] Terry Rashad Wilson appeals the criminal judgments the district court entered after a jury found him guilty of aggravated assault, interference with telephone during emergency call, and menacing under N.D.C.C. §§ 12.1-17-02(1)(a), 12.1-21-06.1, and 12.1-17-05. On appeal, Wilson argues (1) insufficient evidence supports the guilty verdict on the charge of interference with telephone during emergency call; (2) insufficient evidence supports the guilty verdict on the charge of menacing; and (3) the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the November 19, 2025 pronounced judgment.

I

[¶2] “In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the defendant bears the burden of showing the evidence reveals no reasonable inference of guilt when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.” State v. Pittsley, 2025 ND 158, ¶ 1, 25 N.W.3d 773 (quoting State v. Cahoon, 2023 ND 178, ¶ 1, 996 N.W.2d 313). After reviewing the record, we conclude sufficient evidence supports the guilty verdicts on the charges of interference with telephone during emergency call and menacing. We summarily affirm the criminal judgments under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3).

II

[¶3] A district court “loses jurisdiction to alter, amend, or modify [a] judgment” once it becomes final. State v. Vollrath, 2018 ND 269, ¶ 4, 920 N.W.2d 746 (quoting State v. Meier, 440 N.W.2d 700, 702 (N.D. 1989)). “Once a case has been tried and sentence pronounced, the court loses its jurisdiction.” State v. Glasser, 2021 ND 60, ¶ 6, 956 N.W.2d 373 (cleaned up). Any attempt to “amend or modify a final judgment is void unless it is made upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment.” Meier, at 702,.

[¶4] This Court has consistently held once the district court pronounces a sentence and closes the record, the court lacks jurisdiction to modify the sentence, even when new information surfaces immediately afterward, except upon grounds provided by statute or by the Rules of Criminal Procedure for correcting or amending a judgment. See State v. Bryan, 316 N.W.2d 335, 338 (N.D. 1982) (a pronounced sentence cannot change, even before reduction to writing); Glasser, 2021 ND 60, ¶¶ 8, 11, 956 N.W.2d 373 (the court could not modify a sentence after discovering the defendant submitted falsified character letters the court relied on at sentencing). One exception, not applicable here, is a sentence reduction within 120 days after sentence is imposed under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b). See State v. Neilan, 2021 ND 217, ¶ 16, 967 N.W.2d 765 (“Under the plain language of N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b), a district court may grant a sentence reduction. It may do so on its own initiative, so long as there is notice to the parties.”).

[¶5] The record shows the district court pronounced sentence on November 19, 2025, immediately following the verdicts. The court orally sentenced Wilson to three years of incarceration with all but 180 days suspended, credit for 33 days served, followed by two years of supervised probation. The court then closed the record and directed the deputy to escort Wilson from the courtroom. As Wilson neared the courtroom door, he made a comment to jurors which prompted the court to recall Wilson and resentence him to four years of incarceration followed by two years of supervised probation. Wilson, through counsel, objected to the court changing the sentence. Under Glasser, the post-pronouncement emergence of new information does not restore jurisdiction the court already lost. The court's sua sponte resentencing, and the written and amended judgments the court subsequently entered, improperly amended a pronounced judgment over which the court no longer had jurisdiction. While the court had jurisdiction to reduce the originally pronounced sentence under N.D.R.Crim.P. 35(b), it did not give the required notice, nor did it reduce the originally pronounced sentence. We summarily reverse under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b).

III

[¶6] We conclude sufficient evidence supports the jury's guilty verdicts on the charges of interference with telephone during emergency call and menacing, and we summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to amend the November 19, 2025 pronounced judgment, and the subsequent amended judgments cannot stand. We summarily reverse under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(b) and remand for entry of a judgment reinstating the original November 19, 2025 sentence with credit for time served to date. The mandate under N.D.R.App.P. 41 shall issue forthwith. We direct the district court to reinstate the original sentence, with credit for time served to date, within five days after the mandate issues.

Per Curiam.

[¶7] Lisa Fair McEvers, C.J. Jerod E. Tufte Jon J. Jensen Douglas A. Bahr Mark A. Friese