State v. Bartholomew

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Bartholomew

625 P.2d 1109, 102 Idaho 106, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 304

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 24, 1981

Docket13463

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 625 P.2d 1109 (State v. Bartholomew) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Bartholomew, 625 P.2d 1109, 102 Idaho 106, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 304 (Idaho 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged in May 1979 with grand larceny, I.C. § 18-4604, the information alleging the theft of one hundred head of lambs valued at approximately $6,500. Appellant entered a guilty plea and a presentence investigation was ordered. On the day set for sentencing, the district court heard evidence presented by appellant in mitigation of sentence. The court also considered the presentence investigation report, appellant’s prior criminal record, the facts and circumstances of the offense, and other factors including the alternative of release programs as opposed to incarceration. The court then sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term of seven years. Appellant seeks review, contending that the court abused its sentencing discretion by not retaining jurisdiction and/or placing appellant on probation.

*107 The sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum limit proscribed for the crime of grand larceny. I.C. § 18-4606. Where sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, an appellant has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court. State v. Dillon, 100 Idaho 723, 604 P.2d 737 (1979); State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); State v. Chapa, 98 Idaho 54, 558 P.2d 83 (1976). Upon review of the information before the sentencing court, including the presentence investigation report and appellant’s prior criminal record which reflects two previous felonies in Idaho concerning grand larceny of livestock, it is the conclusion of this court that appellant has failed to meet that burden. The court below did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to an indeterminate seven-year term.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was charged in May 1979 with grand larceny, I.C. § 18-4604, the information alleging the theft of one hundred head of lambs valued at approximately $6,500. Appellant entered a guilty plea and a presentence investigation was ordered. On the day set for sentencing, the district court heard evidence presented by appellant in mitigation of sentence. The court also considered the presentence investigation report, appellant’s prior criminal record, the facts and circumstances of the offense, and other factors including the alternative of release programs as opposed to incarceration. The court then sentenced appellant to an indeterminate term of seven years. Appellant seeks review, contending that the court abused its sentencing discretion by not retaining jurisdiction and/or placing appellant on probation.

*107 The sentence imposed was well within the statutory maximum limit proscribed for the crime of grand larceny. I.C. § 18-4606. Where sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, an appellant has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court. State v. Dillon, 100 Idaho 723, 604 P.2d 737 (1979); State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); State v. Chapa, 98 Idaho 54, 558 P.2d 83 (1976). Upon review of the information before the sentencing court, including the presentence investigation report and appellant’s prior criminal record which reflects two previous felonies in Idaho concerning grand larceny of livestock, it is the conclusion of this court that appellant has failed to meet that burden. The court below did not abuse its discretion in sentencing appellant to an indeterminate seven-year term.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

625 P.2d 1109, 102 Idaho 106, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bartholomew-idaho-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack