State v. Brewster

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Brewster

676 P.2d 720, 106 Idaho 145, 1984 Ida. LEXIS 446

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 15, 1984

Docket15042

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 676 P.2d 720 (State v. Brewster) 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. Brewster, 676 P.2d 720, 106 Idaho 145, 1984 Ida. LEXIS 446 (Idaho 1984).

Pincite

Opinions

BAKES, Justice.

The defendant appeals the length of his sentence and also asserts that the trial court did not make an adequate statement of the reasons for imposing the sentence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of drawing checks with insufficient funds and one count of grand theft. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a three-year indeterminate term of imprisonment for each of the eight counts of drawing checks with insufficient funds. These eight three-year terms were to run concurrently. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to one seven-year indeterminate term of imprisonment on the grand theft conviction to run consecutive to the other terms.

The record reflects that all eight checks written with insufficient funds were within a one-month period. The bad checks ranged in amounts from $90 to $120, and seven of them were written to the same grocery store. The defendant had a prior criminal record and was in fact out on bond when the grand theft occurred. The trial judge stated at the time of sentencing:

“In light of your prior record, particularly, I do not feel I have any choice but to impose a penitentiary sentence. You’ve been given opportunities that would be available to the court at this time if you had not been before the court before.

“With respect to the grand theft charge, I’m going to impose a term of seven years in the state penitentiary. That, also, will be indeterminate, but that will run consecutive to the term relating to the bad check charges. That, Mr. Brewster, is primarily because of the circumstances under which that theft took place and the fact that you were out on bond at the time. And I feel that it would not be appropriate to have a concurrent term on the grand theft charge to the other charges.”

On this record we do not feel that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sentences described above.

[146]*146The defendant argues that the trial court did not give adequate reasons for the sentence imposed. We reiterate “that while the setting forth of reasons for the imposition of a particular sentence would be helpful, and is encouraged, it is not mandatory.” State v. Osborn, 104 Idaho 809, 810, 663 P.2d 1111, 1112 (1983). We have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing and conclude that the trial court did not err in the sentences imposed.

Affirmed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur. BISTLINE, J., concurs in the result.

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

BAKES, Justice.

The defendant appeals the length of his sentence and also asserts that the trial court did not make an adequate statement of the reasons for imposing the sentence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to eight counts of drawing checks with insufficient funds and one count of grand theft. The trial court sentenced the defendant to a three-year indeterminate term of imprisonment for each of the eight counts of drawing checks with insufficient funds. These eight three-year terms were to run concurrently. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to one seven-year indeterminate term of imprisonment on the grand theft conviction to run consecutive to the other terms.

The record reflects that all eight checks written with insufficient funds were within a one-month period. The bad checks ranged in amounts from $90 to $120, and seven of them were written to the same grocery store. The defendant had a prior criminal record and was in fact out on bond when the grand theft occurred. The trial judge stated at the time of sentencing:

“In light of your prior record, particularly, I do not feel I have any choice but to impose a penitentiary sentence. You’ve been given opportunities that would be available to the court at this time if you had not been before the court before.

“With respect to the grand theft charge, I’m going to impose a term of seven years in the state penitentiary. That, also, will be indeterminate, but that will run consecutive to the term relating to the bad check charges. That, Mr. Brewster, is primarily because of the circumstances under which that theft took place and the fact that you were out on bond at the time. And I feel that it would not be appropriate to have a concurrent term on the grand theft charge to the other charges.”

On this record we do not feel that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the sentences described above.

[146]*146The defendant argues that the trial court did not give adequate reasons for the sentence imposed. We reiterate “that while the setting forth of reasons for the imposition of a particular sentence would be helpful, and is encouraged, it is not mandatory.” State v. Osborn, 104 Idaho 809, 810, 663 P.2d 1111, 1112 (1983). We have reviewed the transcript of the sentencing hearing and conclude that the trial court did not err in the sentences imposed.

Affirmed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur. BISTLINE, J., concurs in the result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

676 P.2d 720, 106 Idaho 145, 1984 Ida. LEXIS 446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-brewster-idaho-1984.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack