State v. Bylama
| Decision Date | 17 August 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 13735,13735 |
| Citation | 103 Idaho 472,649 P.2d 1228 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Nathan Harvard BYLAMA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Eric T. Nordlof, Nordlof & Loats, Coeur d'Alene, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Appellant was convicted of robbing a bank in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The trial judge sentenced him to custody of the Board of Correction for an indeterminate term not exceeding twenty years. Bylama's appeal raises these principal issues: Was it error for the trial judge to sentence him without a complete presentence report, including a psychological evaluation? Was the sentence excessive?
Appellant stated in court that Nathan Harvard Bylama was not his right name, but he refused to divulge his true identity. He insisted on defending himself and he did so, both at trial and at the sentencing hearing, with a standby, court-appointed attorney to assist him when requested.
Appellant refused to cooperate with the presentence investigator who had the responsibility of preparing the presentence report. Appellant provided only sketchy information which the investigator considered "questionable." He consistently refused to provide pertinent additional information regarding his identity or past life. The investigator was convinced that appellant was "an intelligent person, and one who is determined to keep his true identity a secret." He reported to the court that he and other law enforcement investigators had "checked every feasible lead, and have discovered no additional information than that already listed in the report." The investigator could uncover no prior criminal record, based on the information available.
Sentencing Process.
Appellant contends the presentence report was inadequate because it did not include all of the information required by I.C.R. 32(b). However, the failure to meet all of those requirements was the result of appellant's refusal to cooperate in the preparation of the report. He cannot now claim that the deficiencies in the report precluded the trial court from sentencing him. See State v. Lopez, 100 Idaho 99, 593 P.2d 1003 (1979); King v. State, 93 Idaho 87, 456 P.2d 254 (1969). At sentencing the trial judge recognized that he did not have much information about the appellant upon which to base his sentence. Through counsel on appeal, appellant now contends that the trial judge abused his discretion in not ordering that a psychological evaluation be made part of the presentence report.
The determination of whether a psychological evaluation should be included in a presentence report is one for the sound discretion of the trial court. Idaho Criminal Rule 32(b)(10) provides that a presentence report should include a "complete summary of the presentence investigator's view of the psychological factors surrounding the commission of the crime or regarding the defendant individually which the investigator discovers." The rule further provides that, "(w)here appropriate, the analysis should also include a specific recommendation regarding a psychological examination and a plan of rehabilitation." (Emphasis supplied.)
The presentence report contains no mention of appellant's psychological condition other than reciting a statement by appellant that he had no reason to consult a doctor for either physical or psychological purposes since his arrest. At sentencing, however, his attorney said appellant owed a $532.21 hospital bill "for medical services when incarcerated." This is not explained in the record.
Appellant now urges that a psychological evaluation was required in light of the decision in State v. French, 95 Idaho 853, 522 P.2d 61 (1974). In that case, our Supreme Court noted that the information contained in the presentence report, concerning the defendant's psychological condition, was "sketchy and unskilled." Id. at 854, 522 P.2d at 62. After noting that the defendant was a "family man and a dependable worker without any prior criminal record who committed a forcible rape without any explanation," the Supreme Court said:
This case begs for a psychological evaluation. The omission of such an evaluation in this case deprived the district court of pertinent information essential to pronouncing an appropriate judgment.
However, in the later case of State v. Whitman, 96 Idaho 489, 491, 531 P.2d 579, 581 (1975), the Idaho Supreme Court emphasized that, "... French does not hold that a psychological evaluation is required in every criminal case where the trial judge orders a presentence report."
The facts of this case, unlike French, suggest a wilful design on the part of appellant to reveal as little about himself as possible. The record reveals appellant as an articulate person capable, in a nonprofessional way, of actively participating in-and even directing-his defense in a five-day jury trial.
At the sentencing hearing, appellant referred to the presentence report, saying it was incomplete and that it lacked a "treatment plan and/or optional recommendations." However, appellant did not offer to provide any additional information. His counsel confirmed that appellant chose not to provide additional information about himself. There is no indication that, if a psychological evaluation had been ordered, appellant would have cooperated; nor is there any showing that a meaningful examination could have been conducted without such cooperation. Upon this record we hold that failure to order a psychological evaluation was not error.
The Sentence Imposed.
Appellant also contends that the indeterminate twenty-year sentence was excessive. When a sentence imposed is within the statutory limits, the appellant has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the sentencing court. E.g., State v. Wolf, 102 Idaho 789, 640 P.2d 1190 (Ct.App.1982); State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 322, 597 P.2d 44, 45 (1979).
Under I.C. § 18-6503, robbery is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not less than five years, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lopez
...to determine its materiality in relation to the entire affidavit. We will not presume error from a silent record. State v. Bylama, 103 Idaho 472, 649 P.2d 1228 (Ct.App.1982). In any event, the existence of probable cause for the initial, warrantless search also would have supported a subseq......
-
State v. Robbins, 18607
... ... " 'Fundamental error' is an amorphous concept which is difficult to define and even more difficult to apply. In Idaho, it ... Page 191 ... [123 Idaho 542] at least means error 'which has deprived appellant of due process.' State v. Bylama, 103 Idaho 472, 475, 649 P.2d 1228, 1231 (Ct.App.1982). An Indiana court has given a more detailed definition: 'Fundamental or plain error results only where a statement is made or an act is done which results in prejudicial error that goes to the heart of a party's case and where that statement ... ...
-
State v. Puente-Gomez
...I.C.R. 32(d). Thus, whether to order a psychological evaluation is a question left to the court's discretion. State v. Bylama, 103 Idaho 472, 649 P.2d 1228 (Ct.App.1982); State v. Anderson, 103 Idaho 622, 651 P.2d 556 In this case, Gomez was found guilty on January 4, 1990. Sentencing was s......
-
State Of Idaho v. Hanson, Docket No. 37436
...172 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Puente-Gomez, 121 Idaho 702, 705-06, 827 P.2d 715, 718-19 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Bylama, 103 Idaho 472, 474, 349 P.2d 1228, 1230 (Ct. App. 1982). In State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982), this Court discussed the parameters of a psych......