State v. Zamora

Idaho Court of Appeals

State v. Zamora

798 P.2d 464, 118 Idaho 619, 1990 Ida. App. LEXIS 160

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 24, 1990

DocketNo. 18205

StatusPublished

This text of 798 P.2d 464 (State v. Zamora) 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. Zamora, 798 P.2d 464, 118 Idaho 619, 1990 Ida. App. LEXIS 160 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In a jury trial, Felipe Zamora was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a felony. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction, contending that his sentence is excessive. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The district court committed Zamora to the custody of the Board of Correction under a unified sentence of five and one-half years with a one-year minimum period of confinement followed by a four and one-[620]*620half year indeterminate period. He was to receive credit against this sentence for 348 days of incarceration in jail prior to the entry of judgment.

Although the district judge ordered a presentence report and held a sentencing hearing, the record now before us contains neither the report nor a transcript of the hearing. We have been furnished only with a trial transcript. An appellant bears the burden of presenting a record to substantiate his argument on an appeal. See, e.g., State v. Langley, 115 Idaho 727, 769 P.2d 604 (Ct.App.1989).

Nevertheless, we have considered the arguments contained in Zamora’s brief. Ordinarily, we evaluate the reasonableness of the mandatory period of incarceration, applying the substantive criteria articulated in State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982). However, because of the jail-time credit allowed against his sentence, Zamora had already served the minimum period of confinement to become eligible for parole before this appeal was submitted for determination. We are left with the question of whether the overall five and one-half year sentence is unreasonable. We find no basis in the limited record furnished us on appeal for holding that the sentence is excessive. The sentence is not in excess of the statutory maximum, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(l)(A), and does not violate the Unified Sentencing Act. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction, including the sentence.

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

PER CURIAM.

In a jury trial, Felipe Zamora was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, a felony. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction, contending that his sentence is excessive. The sole issue is whether the district court abused its sentencing discretion. For the following reasons, we affirm.

The district court committed Zamora to the custody of the Board of Correction under a unified sentence of five and one-half years with a one-year minimum period of confinement followed by a four and one-[620]*620half year indeterminate period. He was to receive credit against this sentence for 348 days of incarceration in jail prior to the entry of judgment.

Although the district judge ordered a presentence report and held a sentencing hearing, the record now before us contains neither the report nor a transcript of the hearing. We have been furnished only with a trial transcript. An appellant bears the burden of presenting a record to substantiate his argument on an appeal. See, e.g., State v. Langley, 115 Idaho 727, 769 P.2d 604 (Ct.App.1989).

Nevertheless, we have considered the arguments contained in Zamora’s brief. Ordinarily, we evaluate the reasonableness of the mandatory period of incarceration, applying the substantive criteria articulated in State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982). However, because of the jail-time credit allowed against his sentence, Zamora had already served the minimum period of confinement to become eligible for parole before this appeal was submitted for determination. We are left with the question of whether the overall five and one-half year sentence is unreasonable. We find no basis in the limited record furnished us on appeal for holding that the sentence is excessive. The sentence is not in excess of the statutory maximum, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(l)(A), and does not violate the Unified Sentencing Act. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction, including the sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

798 P.2d 464, 118 Idaho 619, 1990 Ida. App. LEXIS 160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-zamora-idahoctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack