State v. Bottens, 26579.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Idaho |
| Writing for the Court | GUTIERREZ. |
| Citation | 137 Idaho 730,52 P.3d 875 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Erik Delbert BOTTENS, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Docket Number | No. 26579.,26579. |
| Decision Date | 20 March 2002 |
52 P.3d 875
137 Idaho 730
v.
Erik Delbert BOTTENS, Defendant-Respondent
No. 26579.
Court of Appeals of Idaho.
March 20, 2002.
Rehearing Denied May 15, 2002.
Rehearing Denied August 22, 2002.
Siebe Law Office, Moscow, for respondent. James E. Siebe argued.
GUTIERREZ, Judge.
The state appeals from the district court's order granting a reduction of Erik Delbert Bottens' sentence for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age. The district court reduced Bottens' sentence after granting a motion to reconsider a previous denial of his Rule 35 motion. We reverse the order of the district court and remand for reimposition of Bottens' original sentence.
I.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In April 1999, Bottens pled guilty to one count of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, I.C. § 18-1508A. On July 30, the district court pronounced a unified sentence of ten years, with one and one-half years fixed. A written judgment was entered on August 4. The previous day, on August 3, Bottens' public defender filed a Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. On August 5, Bottens hired a private attorney who substituted for the public defender.
On February 16, 2000, the district court denied Bottens' Rule 35 motion. On February 28, counsel for Bottens filed a motion to reconsider the order denying the Rule 35 motion. The district court granted Bottens' motion to reconsider and held a hearing on April 13. Subsequently, the district court entered an amended judgment, imposing a fixed sentence of fifteen months with credit for time served. The state filed this timely appeal, arguing that the district court acted improperly because it lacked jurisdiction to hear Bottens' motion.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Issues of subject matter jurisdiction present questions of law over which appellate courts exercise free review. State v. McCarthy, 133 Idaho 119, 122, 982 P.2d 954, 957 (Ct.App.1999). Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may be raised at any time in the course of judicial proceedings and may not be waived by the parties. Id.
III.
ANALYSIS
The district court did not have jurisdiction to hear Bottens' motion to reconsider because it was an improper successive motion. Rule 35 states, in pertinent part, "no defendant may file more than one motion seeking a reduction of sentence under this Rule." We held in State v. Hickman, 119
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hurst, 37431.
...consistently held that Idaho Criminal Rule 35 precludes the "filing" of a second motion for reduction of sentence, see State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732–33, 52 P.3d 875, 877–78 (Ct.App.2002) ; State v. Atwood, 122 Idaho 199, 200–01, 832 P.2d 1134, 1135–36 (Ct.App.1992), including the cir......
-
State v. Hurst, 37431.
...consistently held that Idaho Criminal Rule 35 precludes the “filing” of a second motion for reduction of sentence, see State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732–33, 52 P.3d 875, 877–78 (Ct.App.2002); State v. Atwood, 122 Idaho 199, 200–01, 832 P.2d 1134, 1135–36 (Ct.App.1992), including the circ......
-
State v. Wolfe, Docket No. 38896
...is dependent on the rule under which the preceding motion (and subsequent decision by the district court) was made. See State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 731-32, 52 P.3d 875, 876-77 (Ct. App. 2002).B. Jurisdiction on Appeal Despite this jurisprudence, Wolfe cites to Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 ......
-
State v. Wolfe, Docket No. 38896
...is dependent on the rule under which the preceding motion (and subsequent decision by the district court) was made. See State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 731-32, 52 P.3d 875, 876-77 (Ct. App. 2002).B. Jurisdiction on Appeal Despite this jurisprudence, Wolfe cites to Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 ......
-
State v. Hurst, 37431.
...consistently held that Idaho Criminal Rule 35 precludes the "filing" of a second motion for reduction of sentence, see State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732–33, 52 P.3d 875, 877–78 (Ct.App.2002) ; State v. Atwood, 122 Idaho 199, 200–01, 832 P.2d 1134, 1135–36 (Ct.App.1992), including the cir......
-
State v. Hurst, 37431.
...consistently held that Idaho Criminal Rule 35 precludes the “filing” of a second motion for reduction of sentence, see State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732–33, 52 P.3d 875, 877–78 (Ct.App.2002); State v. Atwood, 122 Idaho 199, 200–01, 832 P.2d 1134, 1135–36 (Ct.App.1992), including the circ......
-
State v. Wolfe, Docket No. 38896
...is dependent on the rule under which the preceding motion (and subsequent decision by the district court) was made. See State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 731-32, 52 P.3d 875, 876-77 (Ct. App. 2002).B. Jurisdiction on Appeal Despite this jurisprudence, Wolfe cites to Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 ......
-
State v. Wolfe, Docket No. 38896
...is dependent on the rule under which the preceding motion (and subsequent decision by the district court) was made. See State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 731-32, 52 P.3d 875, 876-77 (Ct. App. 2002).B. Jurisdiction on Appeal Despite this jurisprudence, Wolfe cites to Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 ......