144 P.3d 23 (Idaho 2006), 31611, State v. Knighton
|Citation:||144 P.3d 23, 143 Idaho 318|
|Opinion Judge:||SCHROEDER, Chief Justice.|
|Party Name:||STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Bruce Allen KNIGHTON, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Molly J. Huskey argued. Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Rebekah A. Cud|
|Judge Panel:||Name SCHROEDER, Chief Justice|
|Case Date:||May 04, 2006|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Idaho|
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Honorable Richard T. St. Clair, District Judge.
Bruce Allen Knighton (Knighton) appeals from the district court's decision regarding his sentencing and also argues that the State violated the terms of the plea agreement.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Knighton was charged with three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, a violation of I.C. § 18-1508. He entered into a written plea agreement with the State and pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. In return the State dismissed two counts of lewd conduct, agreed not to pursue other charges and agreed to recommend a sentence consistent with the suggestion of the presentence investigator.
The presentence investigator recommended Knighton be placed on probation. The plea agreement provides, "If the recommendation is for probation, the State is free to recommend a specific suspended sentence." At the sentence hearing, consistent with the plea agreement, the State recommended that Knighton be placed on probation with an underlying unified sentence of thirty years with five years fixed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-five years with three years fixed.
Knighton filed a motion to reduce his sentence pursuant to I.C.R. 35. The State opposed the motion. The district court denied the motion. On appeal Knighton argues that the State breached the plea agreement by opposing his Rule 35 motion; the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a unified sentence of twenty-five years with three years fixed; and, the district court abused its discretion when it denied his Rule 35 motion seeking leniency. Following oral argument the case was continued to obtain transcripts of the change of plea hearing and the hearing on the Rule 35 motion.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP