State v. Grist, 120618 IDCCA, 45873

Docket Nº:45873
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM
Party Name:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HAROLD E. GRIST, JR., Defendant-Appellant.
Attorney:Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Judge Panel:Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge.
Case Date:December 06, 2018
Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho
 
FREE EXCERPT

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HAROLD E. GRIST, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 45873

Court of Appeals of Idaho

December 6, 2018

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez Perce County. Hon. Jeff M. Brudie, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for correction of illegal sentences, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge.

PER CURIAM 1

Harold E. Grist, Jr. was found guilty of seven counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508; one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen, I.C. § 18-1506(1)(b); and two counts of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age, I.C. § 18-1508A. The district court imposed concurrent, unified sentences of life with ten years determinate for seven counts of lewd conduct and concurrent five-year determinate sentences for one count sexual abuse and two counts of sexual battery. The district court ordered the sexual abuse and sexual battery sentences to run consecutively with Grist's concurrent sentences for lewd conduct.

Grist filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for correction of an illegal sentence, asserting that his sentences are illegal because the statute of limitations had run prior to his prosecution on the charges. The district court denied Grist's motion, finding that Grist's sentences were not illegal because all charges were, in fact, timely filed. Grist appeals.

In State v. Clements, 148 Idaho 82, 87, 218 P.3d 1143, 1148 (2009), the Idaho Supreme Court held that the term "illegal sentence" under Rule 35 is narrowly interpreted as a sentence that is illegal from the face of the record, i.e., does not involve significant questions of fact or require an evidentiary hearing. Rule 35 is a "narrow rule," and because an illegal sentence may be...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP