State v. Hood

639 P.2d 9, 102 Idaho 711, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 409
CourtIdaho Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 30, 1981
Docket13855
StatusPublished
Cited by279 cases

This text of 639 P.2d 9 (State v. Hood) 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. Hood, 639 P.2d 9, 102 Idaho 711, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 409 (Idaho 1981).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The defendant appeals from a sentence of ten years for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. The assault occurred in conjunction with an escape from the Payette County jail in which the defendant and two other inmates threatened a deputy sheriff with the sharpened handle of a spoon and locked him in a cell and escaped from the jail.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the aggravated assault charge, and the court ordered a presentence investigation. The presentence investigation indicated that the defendant, eighteen years of age at the time of the assault, had a rather substantial record as a juvenile and that his attitude and outlook required institutionalization. The psychological report attached to the presentence investigation indicated that the defendant was potentially dangerous to society.

The court sentenced the defendant to an indeterminate term for not to exceed ten years, retaining jurisdiction for 120 days. Upon receiving the report from the Board of Corrections, the court held a hearing on whether or not the court should exercise its retained jurisdiction and grant probation. The defendant was present and testified. Following the hearing, the court concluded that the defendant’s anti-social attitude had not been adequately corrected and that the protection of society required that he not be released on probation at that time. Accordingly, the court ordered that the retained jurisdiction be relinquished and the defendant remanded to the custody of the Idaho State Board of Corrections to serve the balance of the sentence.

The defendant has appealed, asserting that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to exercise its retained jurisdiction to modify the original sentence and place the defendant on probation. We have reviewed the record and conclude that no abuse of discretion is disclosed, and therefore we affirm the judgment of the trial court. State v. Bradac, 101 Idaho 240, 611 P.2d 1025 (1980); State v. Stroup, 101 Idaho 54, 607 P.2d 1328 (1980).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Radford
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2023
State v. Allmaras
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2020
State v. Thompson
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2020
46411 State v. Asian
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2019
State v. Gambino
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2019
State v. Long
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2019
State v. Williams
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2019
State v. Pool
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2019
State v. LeVeque
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Clements
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Hoskins
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Booker
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Rodriguez
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Dacalio
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Tarsha
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Meador
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Barber
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Trevor James Rush
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Kristopher Gilbert Davidson
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018
State v. Dwight Glenn Peters
Idaho Court of Appeals, 2018

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
639 P.2d 9, 102 Idaho 711, 1981 Ida. LEXIS 409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hood-idaho-1981.