State v. Urquhart

Idaho Supreme Court

State v. Urquhart

617 P.2d 849, 101 Idaho 545, 1980 Ida. LEXIS 501

CourtIdaho Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 7, 1980

DocketNo. 13370

StatusPublished

This text of 617 P.2d 849 (State v. Urquhart) 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. Urquhart, 617 P.2d 849, 101 Idaho 545, 1980 Ida. LEXIS 501 (Idaho 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the imposition of sentence following convictions of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

Appellant’s sole assertion of error is that the district judge abused his discretion in imposing sentences of twelve years for robbery and five years for assault, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant was found guilty of an armed robbery of a convenience store during which he utilized a weapon in attempting to hold a person as a hostage. In imposing sentence, the trial judge considered, among other matters, the circumstances of the offense, appellant’s past criminal record, and refused to accept defendant-appellant’s argument that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense. We find no abuse of discretion and the conviction and sentences are affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the imposition of sentence following convictions of robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. We affirm.

Appellant’s sole assertion of error is that the district judge abused his discretion in imposing sentences of twelve years for robbery and five years for assault, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant was found guilty of an armed robbery of a convenience store during which he utilized a weapon in attempting to hold a person as a hostage. In imposing sentence, the trial judge considered, among other matters, the circumstances of the offense, appellant’s past criminal record, and refused to accept defendant-appellant’s argument that he was intoxicated at the time of the offense. We find no abuse of discretion and the conviction and sentences are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

617 P.2d 849, 101 Idaho 545, 1980 Ida. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-urquhart-idaho-1980.