The court's order of February 1, 2012 is revised by striking the last paragraph and inserting the following in its place:
The defendant does not dispute that he was convicted of the offenses that resulted in the imposition of the suspended sentences. Even if he was surprised by the State's inclusion of these new convictions in support of its request to impose his suspended sentences, this does not change the outcome. The defendant had just been tried on the very same offenses, which the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Based upon the record before us, we conclude that the defendant has failed to establish that the error, if any, had any effect on the judgment. Cf. Russell, 159 N.H. at 494 ("Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it." (quotation omitted)).
In all other respects, the defendant's motion for reconsideration is denied.
Hicks, Conboy and Lynn, JJ., concur. ...