Advance Opinions

involve more onerous consequences, the Timmreck Court found no error which “resulted in a complete miscarriage of justice or in a proceeding inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.” Id. at 784 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In contrast here, the five- to twenty-year parole period implicated more onerous consequences than the maximum possible penalty in the district court’s plea advisement and in its Plea and Disposition Agreement, and thus the due process violation was substantive and not merely technical.

III. CONCLUSION

{54} We hold that Torres is overruled regarding abrogation of a district court’s common law jurisdictional authority to correct an illegal sentence. Under this holding, we reverse the district court and remand for imposition of the statutorily required parole sentence. We direct the Rules of Criminal Procedure for State Courts Committee to clarify the length of time that a district court retains jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence in http://www.nmcompcomm.us/ accordance with this opinion. Finally we hold, consistent with the additional Rule 5-303 hearing required by due process, that Appellee is entitled to an opportunity for plea withdrawal.

{55} IT IS SO ORDERED.

C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice

WE CONCUR:

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice