270, Sec. 3012; Reynolds v. Stockton, 43 N.J. Eq. 211, 3 A.S.R. 305; Seamster v. Blackstock, 83 Va. 232, 5 A.S.R. 262; U.S. v. Walter, 109 U.S. 258, W.C.S. 1920, Sec. 5875; State v. Alderman, (N.J.) 79 A. 283; (b-3) the questions involved are not "moot"; that the judgment is void, could not be executed, vitalized, amended, or modified, is a question that can be inquired into at any time, and when vacated the remedy of the State against defendant, exists as in the first instance; City of Salina v. Cooper, (Kan.) 25 P. 233; Ex parte Lange, 95 U.S. 163, 21 L.Ed. 872; Sterling v. State, 25 Tex. App. 716, 9 S.W. 45; Miskimmins v. Shaver, 8 Wyo. 392, 58 P. 411, citing Ex parte Hollis, 59 Cal. 407; Freeman on Judgments, (5th Ed.) Vol. 1, pp. 310, 311, 645; Freeman on Judgments, (5th Ed.) Vol. 3, p. 3622, 15 R.C.L. 690, Sec. 144; Bergdoll v. U.S., 279 Fed. 404; State ex rel. v. Justice Court, (Nev.) 233 P. 40; Barnett v. Will, Sheriff, (N.D.) 166 N.W. 511; Tracy v. State, (Okla.) 216 P. 941; Ex parte Graham, 43 Tex.Crim. 463, 66 S.W. 840; People v. Warden, 202 N.Y. 138, 95 N.E. 729. Second, the judgment could not be legally modified because: (a) it is not severable; State v. Sorrentino, 31 Wyo. 129, 224 P. 420; State v. Sorrentino, 253 P. 14, C.J. Vol. 17, p. 370; (b) by striking from said judgment the words mentioned, no basis remained for sentence, and the sentence was rendered void; Freeman on Judgments, (5th Ed.) Vol. 1, p. 5, Sec. 2; (c) the District Court had power only to affirm, reverse, or vacate the judgment; State v. Sorrentino, 224 P. 420, at 426. Third, the judgment should have been vacated and set aside, the defendant permitted to withdraw his plea of nolo contendere, plead "not guilty," and have a jury pass upon the facts; Hubble v. State, 285 P. 153; City of Salina v. Cooper, (Kan.) 25 P. 233, 16 C.J. 396, Sec. 730; Polk v. State, (Okla.) 224 P. 194; State ex rel. Olson v. Stocker, (Wash.)