State v. Davis

Idaho Court of Appeals

State v. Davis

682 P.2d 104, 106 Idaho 563, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 455

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 27, 1984

DocketNo. 14446

StatusPublished

This text of 682 P.2d 104 (State v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Davis, 682 P.2d 104, 106 Idaho 563, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 455 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

SWANSTROM, Judge.

Robert Davis appeals from an indeterminate fifteen-year sentence to the custody of the Board of Correction, imposed upon a conviction for burglary. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

Davis was charged with the first degree burglary of an auto paint and body shop in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. I.C. §§ 18-1401, -1402. The presentence report shows that he has three prior felony convictions, as [564]*564well as numerous misdemeanor offenses. Having reviewed the full record and having considered the sentence review criteria set forth in State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The sentence is affirmed.

WALTERS, C.J., and BURNETT, J., concur.

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

SWANSTROM, Judge.

Robert Davis appeals from an indeterminate fifteen-year sentence to the custody of the Board of Correction, imposed upon a conviction for burglary. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

Davis was charged with the first degree burglary of an auto paint and body shop in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. I.C. §§ 18-1401, -1402. The presentence report shows that he has three prior felony convictions, as [564]*564well as numerous misdemeanor offenses. Having reviewed the full record and having considered the sentence review criteria set forth in State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982), we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. The sentence is affirmed.

WALTERS, C.J., and BURNETT, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

682 P.2d 104, 106 Idaho 563, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-idahoctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack