State v. Sanchez

Idaho Court of Appeals

State v. Sanchez

757 P.2d 250, 114 Idaho 387, 1988 Ida. App. LEXIS 61

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 1988

DocketNo. 17165

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 757 P.2d 250 (State v. Sanchez) 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. Sanchez, 757 P.2d 250, 114 Idaho 387, 1988 Ida. App. LEXIS 61 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Larry Sanchez appeals from an order revoking his probation and directing him to serve a previously suspended, indeterminate seven-year sentence. The sentence originally was imposed upon a judgment of conviction for grand theft, but was suspended to grant Sanchez the opportunity of probation. His probation was revoked one year later when he pled guilty to another charge of grand theft. The sole issue is whether the sentence is excessive, representing an abuse of the district court’s discretion. We hold that it is not.

Because of problems he previously experienced in prison due to his sexual orientation, Sanchez argues that a commuted sentence of one year in the county jail would better serve the objectives of sentencing. However, we view those objectives in light of an offender’s past record. Here, Sanchez pled guilty to grand theft of jewelry from a roommate. I.C. §§ 18-2403(4) and 18-2407(1)(b). The presentence report shows several misdemeanor violations and, with the recent grand theft charge, three felony convictions. Moreover, Sanchez poorly performed in, and violated, both of the probation opportunities granted him. The sentence imposed in this case will run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the recent grand theft conviction.

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 order directing execution of the sentence is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Larry Sanchez appeals from an order revoking his probation and directing him to serve a previously suspended, indeterminate seven-year sentence. The sentence originally was imposed upon a judgment of conviction for grand theft, but was suspended to grant Sanchez the opportunity of probation. His probation was revoked one year later when he pled guilty to another charge of grand theft. The sole issue is whether the sentence is excessive, representing an abuse of the district court’s discretion. We hold that it is not.

Because of problems he previously experienced in prison due to his sexual orientation, Sanchez argues that a commuted sentence of one year in the county jail would better serve the objectives of sentencing. However, we view those objectives in light of an offender’s past record. Here, Sanchez pled guilty to grand theft of jewelry from a roommate. I.C. §§ 18-2403(4) and 18-2407(1)(b). The presentence report shows several misdemeanor violations and, with the recent grand theft charge, three felony convictions. Moreover, Sanchez poorly performed in, and violated, both of the probation opportunities granted him. The sentence imposed in this case will run concurrently with the sentence imposed on the recent grand theft conviction.

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 order directing execution of the sentence is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

757 P.2d 250, 114 Idaho 387, 1988 Ida. App. LEXIS 61, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sanchez-idahoctapp-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack