State v. Angel

Decision Date14 September 1982
Docket Number14245,Nos. 14121,s. 14121
Citation651 P.2d 558,103 Idaho 624
PartiesThe STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ebony ANGEL, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

Alan E. Trimming, Boise, for defendant-appellant.

David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Stephen J. Gledhill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.

SWANSTROM, Judge.

Ebony Angel was convicted of second degree burglary and was sentenced to the custody of the Board of Corrections for an indeterminate period not exceeding five years. He appeals, contending that errors in the information and in the presentence report caused him prejudice in the district court. He also contends his sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. We affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed.

Angel was charged with two counts of second degree burglary and with being a persistent violator of the law. After a jury trial, Angel was found guilty of one count of burglary and was acquitted on the other. He then pled guilty to being a persistent violator of the law as charged in the information.

Angel contends he was deprived of a fair trial because of errors contained in part II of the information. These errors related to the dates of his prior convictions that were the basis of his being charged as a persistent violator. This bare assertion of error is not supported by the record. Moreover, by pleading guilty to being a persistent violator Angel waived any legal defenses he may have had as a result of incorrect dates alleged in the information. State v. Morris, 97 Idaho 273, 543 P.2d 498 (1975); Idaho Criminal Rule 12(b)(2).

Angel contends that the presentence report was inadequate because it contained mistakes concerning his age, the date of his prior convictions, and the dates of his paroles and incarcerations. The record discloses that at the time of the sentencing hearing Angel and his attorney were aware of the inaccuracies. Angel's attorney pointed out the correct dates to the trial judge. He informed the court Angel was sixty-seven years old, not forty-seven, as the report showed. Angel made no objection at the hearing to the use of the report by the judge in determining the sentence.

Where no objection has been made to a presentence report at a sentencing hearing, and the report substantially addresses the points required by court rule, we will not review a challenge to the report raised on appeal. State v. Toohill, --- Idaho ---, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982); State v. Thacker, 98 Idaho 369, 564 P.2d 1278 (1977); State v. Wallace, 98 Idaho 318, 563 P.2d 42 (1977).

Angel also urges that the court's imposition of a five year sentence violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. This contention is devoid of merit. The record shows that prior to his latest conviction Angel had been...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Fairchild
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • March 2, 1992
    ...a sentence within statutory limits is not cruel and unusual. Watkins v. State, 101 Idaho 758, 620 P.2d 792 (1980); State v. Angel, 103 Idaho 624, 651 P.2d 558 (Ct.App.1982). In the appeal of his sentences, Fairchild makes arguments similar to those raised in Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 9......
  • State v. Kelly
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • January 31, 1984
    ...is not ordinarily considered cruel and unusual punishment. Watkins v. State, 101 Idaho 758, 620 P.2d 792 (1980); State v. Angel, 103 Idaho 624, 651 P.2d 558 (Ct.App.1982). Moreover, we have been shown no authority for the proposition that classification of a person's offense, or the disabil......
  • State v. Valdez-Abrejo
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 1985
    ...has held that a sentence imposed within the limits prescribed by statute will not be regarded as cruel and unusual. State v. Angel, 103 Idaho 624, 651 P.2d 558 (Ct.App.1982); State v. Prince, 97 Idaho 893, 556 P.2d 369 (1976); King v. State, 91 Idaho 97, 416 P.2d 44 (1966). Whether a senten......
  • Holmes v. State
    • United States
    • Idaho Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 1983
    ...the requirements established by court rule, we will not review a challenge to the report raised on appeal. See State v. Angel, 103 Idaho 624, 651 P.2d 558 (Ct.App.1982); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 A presentence report includes "the presentence investigator's analysis of t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT