Cited by

(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no 6 STATE v. BLOMDAHL Decision of the Court subject matter jurisdictio

(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).

(“the [S]tate’s failure to timely appeal or cross-appeal acts as a jurisdictional bar to its raising the error in defendant’s appeal”).

(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross appeal by the State seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).

Moreover, our supreme court has made it clear that the “failure to impose a legal sentence is one of those rare situations from which the [S]tate can seek review even if it failed to object in the trial court.”

However, the State has not filed a cross-appeal, we do not correct this error.

However, the State has not filed a cross-appeal, we do not correct this error.

(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court FILED: AA Dawson, (“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).

(“In the absence of a timely appeal or cross-appeal by the state seeking to correct an illegally lenient sentence, an appellate court has no subject matter jurisdiction to consider that issue.”).

Also, Hastings argues the State’s failure to respond to his Motion “waived the opportunity to amend sentence.”1 We are unpersuaded by either argument.