Lunden v. State
Annotate this CaseAppellant pled guilty to unlawful use of a credit card (a misdemeanor) and forgery (a felony). The district court denied Appellant's motions to modify his sentence, correct an illegal sentence, and reduce his sentence. Appellant unsuccessfully filed a motion for postconviction relief and another motion for a reduction of his sentence. Finally, Appellant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence based on the same allegations he raised in the petition for postconviction relief, namely, that he was denied a direct appeal, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. The district court denied the motion. Appellant appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal because he was not advised that his guilty pleas may result in the disqualification of his right to possess firearms pursuant to federal law. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Court could not consider Appellant's argument because it was being raised for the first time on appeal, and further, even if the issue had been raised before the district court, it would have been barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.