Richard Bryson was convicted of multiple child-sex offenses and challenged the legality of sentences imposed years earlier. He argued that statutory amendments requiring split sentences should apply to his convictions and that his sentences were void. The Court of Appeals held that it had jurisdiction to consider a colorable void-sentence claim. It nevertheless affirmed the convictions and most of the sentences because offenses are ordinarily punished under the law in effect when they were committed. The court vacated the sentence for statutory rape because the indictment alleged a time period that crossed the effective date of the later split-sentence statute, making it impossible to determine from the record which version applied. The case was remanded for resentencing on that count under the proper statutory framework. The published decision is notable for explaining when a sentence challenge can be brought years after judgment and for applying temporal statutory rules to a sentencing range that changes the quality of punishment even when the total term might remain similar.