Cited by

(“[I]f there was a reasonable, legal alternative to violating the law, ‘a chance both to refuse to do the criminal act and also to avoid the threatened harm,’ the defenses of duress and necessity will fail.”) (internal brackets omitted) (quoting Bailey, 444 U.S. at 410)).

Despite this error, “we will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the state.”

Despite this error, “we will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the [S]tate.”

Despite this error, “we will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of [her] own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the state.”

at 131 ¶ 22; (“The sentencing provisions enacted by our legislature are mandatory and may not be circumvented by agreements between prosecutors and defendants.”); In re Webb, 150 8 STATE V. ROBERTSON Op

(imposition of sentence with parole eligibility under statutory minimum was harmless error); (“An illegal sentence is no sentence at all.”).

“[W]e will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the state.”

We have previously characterized immediate threatened harm as “present, imminent and impending.” -06 (1990)

The duress “must be present, imminent and impending.” (no error in precluding duress defense where evidence showed defendant who had escaped from prison faced no imminent physical injury despite “shoot to kill” order).

the coercion or duress must be present, imminent and impending, and of such a nature as to induce a well- grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done.” (); (“Duress envisions a third person compelling a person by the threat of immediate physical violence to commit a crime against another person or the property of another person.”).

(holding that, absent a proper appeal or cross appeal from the State, we will not correct sentencing errors that benefit the defendant).

We will not, however, “correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross- appeal by the state.”

however, , (recognizing that an appellate court “will not correct sentencing errors that benefit a defendant, in the context of his own appeal, absent a proper appeal or cross-appeal by the state”).

P.2d 844 (1990) (statute applicable to kidnapping child under fifteen years of age required court to sentence defendant pursuant to dangerous crimes against children statute); P.2d 1189 (App. 1992) (illegal sentence where plea agreement permitted attempted child molestatio

(trial judge has no discretion to substitute own judgment for penalty prescribed by legislature).

(To constitute defense, coercion or duress must be present, imminent, impending, and “of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily injury if the act is not done.”) ( , ).