State v. Jones

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Jones

683 P.2d 873, 106 Idaho 837, 1984 Ida. LEXIS 509

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1984

DocketNo. 15004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 683 P.2d 873 (State v. Jones) 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. Jones, 683 P.2d 873, 106 Idaho 837, 1984 Ida. LEXIS 509 (Idaho 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

HUNTLEY, Justice.

Appellant Larry John Jones pled guilty to a charge of aggravated assault, waived a pre-sentence investigation and was sentenced to an indeterminate five year prison term. No direct appeal was taken. Jones now appeals from a denial of his motion for reconsideration of sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Idaho Criminal Rules.

Assuming that the standard for review of an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider a sentence under I.C.R. 35 is the same as the abuse of discretion standard used to review a sentence on direct appeal, the sole issue raised is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider the sentence. We hold that it did not and affirm.

Jones contends that the sentence is excessive because he is not receiving needed psychiatric care. He claims that without [838]*838the proper care, he will not be released until the five year maximum is served. At that point he would not be subject to state supervision. He suggests that in five years he will be less adaptable to social norms and that society would be better protected if his sentence was reduced so that he could be placed on parole with distinct guidelines concerning psychological counseling. This is a non sequitur. If Jones is in need of such treatment and is receiving inadequate care, he is not without recourse. However, the corrective facility’s conduct in this regard is not relevant to our evaluation of whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion.

We have considered the violent nature of the offense and have reviewed the progress report prepared by the Idaho State Correctional Institution. On this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s sentence and subsequent denial of the motion to reconsider the sentence constituted an abuse of discretion.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

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

HUNTLEY, Justice.

Appellant Larry John Jones pled guilty to a charge of aggravated assault, waived a pre-sentence investigation and was sentenced to an indeterminate five year prison term. No direct appeal was taken. Jones now appeals from a denial of his motion for reconsideration of sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Idaho Criminal Rules.

Assuming that the standard for review of an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider a sentence under I.C.R. 35 is the same as the abuse of discretion standard used to review a sentence on direct appeal, the sole issue raised is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider the sentence. We hold that it did not and affirm.

Jones contends that the sentence is excessive because he is not receiving needed psychiatric care. He claims that without [838]*838the proper care, he will not be released until the five year maximum is served. At that point he would not be subject to state supervision. He suggests that in five years he will be less adaptable to social norms and that society would be better protected if his sentence was reduced so that he could be placed on parole with distinct guidelines concerning psychological counseling. This is a non sequitur. If Jones is in need of such treatment and is receiving inadequate care, he is not without recourse. However, the corrective facility’s conduct in this regard is not relevant to our evaluation of whether the trial court abused its sentencing discretion.

We have considered the violent nature of the offense and have reviewed the progress report prepared by the Idaho State Correctional Institution. On this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s sentence and subsequent denial of the motion to reconsider the sentence constituted an abuse of discretion.

DONALDSON, C.J., and SHEPARD, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

683 P.2d 873, 106 Idaho 837, 1984 Ida. LEXIS 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jones-idaho-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack