Whether a state court's untimely and potentially jurisdictionally defective modification of a previously acknowledged illegal sentence violates a criminal defendant's due process rights and right to timely appellate review

No question identified. : and/or remove an appeal from the Colorado Court of Appeals which had been sitting since 2022 with no briefing due to state created impediments. The state petition asserted, in part, that Petitioner Vreeland, prior to this Court's decisions in Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 219 L. Ed.2d 451 (2024), was already nine-years past his maximum sentence release date, but the trial and court of appeals refused to take timely effective corrective action. Additionally, Petitioner Vreeland was arrested, charged, tried and sentenced by a state court and prosecutor that lacked any and all jurisdiction over Petitioner Vreeland, and the crime charged. Additionally, after this Court decided Erlinger, supra, that decision placed Petitioner Vreeland approximately 15 years past his mandatory, statutory maximum prison release and discharge date due to an illegal sentence the state courts and actors argued was not illegal, but as seen below, 21-years later admitted was illegal. Petitioner Vreeland requested trial on all alleged habitual offender sentence enhancement charges, by jury. The trial court denied the request and tried the issues on his own, and improperly decided Mr. Vreeland had been previously convicted of felonies, and that these felonies had been separately brought and tried on different dates and times. All of which was false. Then, after denying the sentence was illegal for almost 21years, and after a new Colorado Assistant Attorney General, one proseccutor, and a non-associated state judge admitted the sentence was illegal and Mr. Vreeland was entitled to immediate release, had been held for over 15-years illegally, on June 5, 2025, after Petitioner Vreeland argued for twenty-years that the sentence was illegal and that he should be released, another state court judge, not associated with the state case, issued an order claiming that she had, on her own authority, nine hours after the final appeal reply brief was filed by Petitioner Vreeland's counsel, altered the sentence again to moot the appeal arguments and to force Petitioner Vreeland to start his post-conviction process and appeals all over again. A 6 years process at minimum. The order took an illegal sentence and altered it to a different kind of illegal sentence, and did so to block appeals. That court proceeded in absence of jurisdiction of any kind. On August 8, 2025, Petitioner was able to make contact with counsel of record by telephone, and was advised that the Colorado Supreme Court had denied the Petition for Certiorari, but the attorney provided incorrect information as to the actual date that denial was issued. Petitioner Vreeland contacted counsel every week and asked the status of the appeals and cert petition, and finally, on August 8, 2025, at 11:37 AM, was read over the telephone the Colorado Supreme Court denial which was dated May 12, 2025, not July 12, 2025, as Petitioner was advised on August 4th, and 8th, 2025. After being advised of the state court's order on August 8, 2025, Petitioner Vreeland consulted with a Michigan law firm and was advised that (i) the state court issued its denial, for sure, on May 12, 2025, as seen at Vreeland v. People of the State of Colorado, 2025 Colo. LEXIS 339, in case 2025SC147, associated with COA case 2022CA1704, and (ii) a petition for Writ of Certiorari to this Court was due 90-days after May 12, 2025, therefore, no later than August 10, 2025, a Sunday, so August 11, 2025. The Michigan law firm advised that under U.S. Supreme Court Rule 13, a request for time may be made if extraordinary circumstances applied, and that this situation meets that definition because, it was counsel's failure to correctly, properly, and timely advise Petitioner Vreeland that his certiorari petition to the Colorado Supreme Court had been denied, which stripped Petitioner Vreeland of his right to timely seek relief in this Court. Rule 13(5) states that, "For good cause, a Justice may ext