State v. Johnston

Idaho Court of Appeals

State v. Johnston

701 P.2d 111, 108 Idaho 657, 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 629

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 24, 1985

DocketNo. 15711

StatusPublished

This text of 701 P.2d 111 (State v. Johnston) 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. Johnston, 701 P.2d 111, 108 Idaho 657, 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 629 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Michael Johnston appeals from concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of fifteen years for robbery and three years for grand theft. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

Johnston pled guilty to robbery of a pizza parlor and grand theft of a vehicle. The presentence report showed a prior criminal record of assorted non-violent crimes, including forgery, theft and receiving stolen property. As a juvenile he had been caught dealing in illicit drugs. 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 sentences are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Michael Johnston appeals from concurrent indeterminate prison sentences of fifteen years for robbery and three years for grand theft. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

Johnston pled guilty to robbery of a pizza parlor and grand theft of a vehicle. The presentence report showed a prior criminal record of assorted non-violent crimes, including forgery, theft and receiving stolen property. As a juvenile he had been caught dealing in illicit drugs. 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 sentences are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

701 P.2d 111, 108 Idaho 657, 1985 Ida. App. LEXIS 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-johnston-idahoctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack