State v. Hanson
Citation | 271 P.3d 712,152 Idaho 314 |
Decision Date | 06 January 2012 |
Docket Number | No. 38512.,38512. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
Parties | STATE Of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Matthew W. HANSON, Defendant–Appellant. |
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Diane Walker argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Jessica Lorello argued.
Matthew W. Hanson was convicted of aggravated assault. At the sentencing phase, he exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to participate in the preparation of the presentence investigation (PSI) report. Hanson later moved the court to order a presentence psychological evaluation. The district court ruled that unless Hanson agreed to participate in the PSI, his motion would be denied on the ground that a defendant may not selectively invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege with respect to different aspects of a single subject. Hanson again declined to participate in the PSI, and the court denied his motion. Hanson's attorney subsequently requested a competency evaluation, which was also denied. Hanson was sentenced to five years, with three years fixed. Hanson moved for reconsideration of his sentence, which motion the district court denied. Hanson appeals the district court's denial of his requests for a psychological evaluation and for a competency evaluation. We affirm in part, vacate the judgment of the district court, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Hanson was convicted of aggravated assault, and the district court imposed a five-year sentence with three years fixed. Hanson's appeal is before this Court on a petition for review after the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded Hanson's case for resentencing. The Court of Appeals set forth the facts:
Hanson timely appealed. The Court of Appeals held that the district court abused its discretion when it denied Hanson's request for a psychological evaluation because Hanson's exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege regarding the PSI did not preclude him from participating in a presentence psychological evaluation and because the record contained sufficient evidence that Hanson's mental health was a significant factor at sentencing, thus triggering the mandatory psychological evaluation required by I.C. § 19–2522. The Court of Appeals also held that the district court properly considered whether Hanson was capable of assisting with his defense and affirmed the court's denial of Hanson's request for a competency hearing. The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded to the district court for a presentence psychological evaluation and resentencing. This Court granted the State's petition for review.
"In cases that come before this Court on a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision, this Court gives serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the lower court." State v. James, 148 Idaho 574, 576, 225 P.3d 1169, 1171 (2010) (citing State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 724, 170 P.3d 387, 389 (2007) ). "The test for determining whether a district court abused its discretion is: (1) whether the court correctly perceived that the issue was one of discretion; (2) whether the court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether it reached its decision by an exercise of reason." Schmechel v. Dillé, 148 Idaho 176, 181, 219 P.3d 1192, 1197 (2009) (citing Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991) ).
At Hanson's second sentencing hearing, the district court invited appellate review of its decision not to order a psychological evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19–2522 :
We accept the district court's invitation to address the Court of Appeals' interpretation of I.C. § 19–2522. We agree with that court's application of the plain language of the statute and hold that the district court erred in failing to order a psychological evaluation.
The State argues that Hanson's mental condition was not a significant factor at...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hanson, 38512.
...152 Idaho 314271 P.3d 712STATE Of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Matthew W. HANSON, Defendant–Appellant.No. 38512.Supreme Court of Idaho,Boise, December 2011 Term.Jan. 6, [271 P.3d 715] Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Diane Walker argued.Hon. Lawrence ......