State v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 16 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 47987 & 48426 |
| Citation | 509 P.3d 1161 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Cory Ryan CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Nevin, Benjamin & McKay, LLP, Boise, for appellant, Cory Ryan Campbell. Debra Groberg argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent, State of Idaho. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
Cory Campbell brings this consolidated appeal. Campbell appeals his sentence arising from his conviction of two counts of battery with attempt to commit rape. Campbell, who was seventeen at the time, was charged with five felony offenses related to multiple victims: four counts of rape and one count of forcible penetration by use of a foreign object. He was charged as an adult pursuant to Idaho Code section 20-509. Campbell ultimately pleaded guilty to amended charges: two counts of battery with attempt to commit rape, both against the same victim. The district court accepted Campbell's pleas, and the State dismissed all remaining counts.
In accordance with the plea agreement, both sides were free to argue at sentencing and nothing was binding on the court. In determining an appropriate sentence, the district court was permitted to consider not only the crimes perpetrated against the victim of the amended charges, but also the crimes alleged by the victims of the dismissed charges and of additional uncharged offenses. All told, Campbell had ten victims. The district court sentenced Campbell to a twenty-year determinate sentence on Count I and to a twenty-year indeterminate sentence on Count II. The district court's written judgment of conviction specifically indicated that the two sentences were to be served consecutively. Campbell timely appealed.
Campbell also filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion in district court seeking relief under various theories. First, Campbell argued that the written judgment of conviction was inconsistent with the oral pronouncement of sentence in court because the district court did not specify whether the two sentences were to run consecutively or concurrently. Campbell also claimed that he had been erroneously waived into adult court. He further requested a reduction of his sentence. The district court denied Campbell's Rule 35 motion but ordered that a resentencing hearing take place to clarify the apparent ambiguity involving whether the sentences were to be served consecutively or concurrently. At the resentencing hearing, the district court clarified that although the original sentence was ambiguous, the two sentences imposed were intended to be served consecutively. The district court then entered an amended judgment, specifically clarifying that the sentences were to be served consecutively. Campbell timely appealed from the district court's amended judgment and the denial of his Rule 35 motion, and the two appeals were consolidated by order of this Court. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court's decisions.
On May 30, 2019, Campbell was charged in district court with multiple counts of felony rape pursuant to Idaho Code section 20-509. The charges resulted from allegations that Campbell had raped ten underage girls between January and November of 2019.1 On September 12, 2019, the State filed an Information reflecting the same charges as the complaint. Campbell eventually agreed to plead guilty to two counts of battery with intent to commit a serious felony (rape) in exchange for the State dismissing the remaining charges. The State then filed an Amended Information to reflect the plea agreement.
Campbell was sentenced on March 6, 2020. Pursuant to the plea agreement, "all of the victims of the uncharged cases as well as the dismissed cases would be treated as victims in this case," and would be permitted to make victim impact statements at Campbell's sentencing. At sentencing, eleven victim impact statements were presented, either by the victims themselves or by their close family members. The district court orally pronounced Campbell's sentence as follows: "[O]n Count I [the sentence] is 20 years in prison as a determinate sentence with zero years fixed and on Count II [the sentence is] 20 years in prison zero years fixed, all indeterminate." The written judgment of conviction specified that the sentences would run consecutively. Campbell timely appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing him.
Approximately five months after Campbell's original sentencing, the State moved for an in camera review of documents related to an Instagram account, created six days after the sentencing hearing, where an anonymous user posted photos of the protection orders for each victim, along with each victim's name and some of the high schools they attended. The caption to this post stated "All of the bitches who falsely reported Cory campbell [sic]." The State sought in camera review by the district court to ensure that the documents related to an investigation of the account were not subject to disclosure pursuant to Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Campbell opposed this motion and argued that the documents should be disclosed. The district court conducted an in camera review and concluded that the documents were not subject to disclosure under Brady because the Instagram account and post were not created until after Campbell had been sentenced. The district court ruled that as such, the documents were not material to either Campbell's guilt or punishment.
The district court entered an amended judgment to reflect the clarification. Campbell timely filed a second notice of appeal challenging the district court's denial of his Rule 35 motion and the district court's in camera review of the potential Brady evidence. The two appeals were consolidated by this Court.
"Constitutional questions are reviewed de novo ." State v. Kelley , 161 Idaho 686, 689, 390 P.3d 412, 415 (2017) (italics in original). "For constitutional challenges, ‘every presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of the statute, and the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statutory provision rests upon the challenger.’ " Zeyen v. Pocatello/Chubbuck Sch. Dist. No. 25 , 165 Idaho 690, 694, 451 P.3d 25, 29 (2019) (quoting Osmunson v. State , 135 Idaho 292, 294, 17 P.3d 236, 238 (2000) ).
State v. Orozco , 168 Idaho 274, 277, 483 P.3d 331, 334 (2021).
Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a) "is a narrow rule which allows a trial court to correct an illegal sentence or to correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner" at any time. State v. Draper , 151 Idaho 576, 601, 261 P.3d 853, 878 (2011). "Generally, whether a sentence is illegal or whether it was imposed in an illegal manner is a question of law, over which we exercise free review." Id.
State v. Shanahan , 165 Idaho 343, 347, 445 P.3d 152, 156 (2019).
"Sentencing decisions are [ ] reviewed using an abuse of discretion standard." State v. Jones , 167 Idaho 353, 358, 470 P.3d 1162, 1167 (2020) (quoting State v. Matthews , 164 Idaho 605, 607, 434 P.3d 209, 211 (2019) ).
When this Court reviews an alleged abuse of discretion by a trial court the sequence of inquiry requires consideration of four essentials. Whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.
Id. (italics in original) (quoting Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018) ).
At the sentencing hearing on March 6, 2020, the district court orally imposed Campbell's sentence:
I am going to find that in this case considering all those factors that have been discussed that the minimum sentence that will accomplish those objectives on Count I is 20 years in prison as a determinate sentence with zero years fixed and on Count II 20 years in prison zero years fixed, all indeterminate.
On March 10, 2020, the district court entered a Judgment of Conviction and Order of Commitment, which read in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Head
...P.3d 804, 830 (2017) (explaining the State's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady); State v. Campbell, 170 Idaho 232, 247, 509 P.3d 1161, 1176 (2022). Restitution evidence is neither. State v. Hall, 163 Idaho 744 830, 419 P.3d 1042, 1128 (2017) (For Brady to apply, the evidence......