State v. Huffman, No. 33015.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Writing for the CourtBurdick
Citation159 P.3d 838,144 Idaho 201
Docket NumberNo. 33015.
Decision Date22 January 2007
PartiesSTATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Fred K. HUFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
159 P.3d 838
144 Idaho 201
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Fred K. HUFFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 33015.
Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 2006 Term.
January 22, 2007.
Rehearing Denied May 8, 2007.

[159 P.3d 839]

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Thomas Tharp, Deputy Attorney General argued.

BURDICK, Justice.


Fred K. Huffman seeks review from a Court of Appeals opinion affirming a district court decision denying Huffman's Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence. We affirm his sentences.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

While on parole from 1997 robbery and grand theft convictions, Huffman absconded. He then attempted to rob one bank in Twin Falls and successfully robbed another before leaving Idaho for Nevada. Huffman was charged with burglary, I.C. § 18-1401, and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403, 18-2407. He pled guilty to these charges, and on November 8, 2004, the district judge sentenced him to a unified term of ten years with six years fixed for the burglary concurrent with a unified fourteen year term with eight years fixed for grand theft. The court also ordered these sentences to run concurrent with the seven and one-half years remaining on Huffman's previous grand theft and robbery sentences.

After sentencing, Huffman moved for a reduction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35, Idaho Criminal Rules, based on the parole commission's decision made in another case prior to his sentencing in this case. Before Huffman's sentencing in the instant case the Commission of Pardons and Parole revoked Huffman's parole from the 1997 robbery and grand theft convictions. In an October 2004 parole revocation hearing on Huffman's previous grand theft and robbery sentences, the hearing officer provided: "It is my recommendation that the subject never again be granted the privilege of parole release. I recommend that he be required to serve out his sentences to their full term release dates." The parole board adopted these findings, considered Huffman unsupervisable, and ordered that he serve his full indeterminate sentences for the 1997 convictions.

The district court denied Huffman's Rule 35 motion. Huffman then appealed this denial to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion and claiming that special circumstances exist which require the examination of more than the determinate portion of his sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. State v. Huffman, ___ P.3d ___, 2006 WL 241130 (Idaho App.2006). This Court then granted Huffman's petition for review.

II. ANALYSIS

Although he appeals only the denial of his Rule 35 motion Huffman urges this Court to review the entire unified portion of his sentence. Since we have never adopted the Court of Appeals language that an appellate court never wholly disregards the indeterminate portion of a sentence, see State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 777, 769 P.2d 1148, 1149 (Ct.App.1989), we should, Huffman urges, decline to adopt the "special...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1218 practice notes
  • State v. Adamcik, Docket No. 34639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 25, 2012
    ...of new information."Page 49144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35. He argue......
  • State v. Adamcik, Docket No. 34639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 29, 2011
    ...of new information."Page 49144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35. He argue......
  • State v. Adamcik, Docket No. 34639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 29, 2011
    ...of new information."Page 49144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35. He argue......
  • State v. Adamcik, No. 34639.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 8, 2012
    ...the presentation of new information.”144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1213 cases
  • State v. Adamcik, Docket No. 34639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • January 25, 2012
    ...of new information."Page 49144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35. He argue......
  • State v. Adamcik, Docket No. 34639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 29, 2011
    ...of new information."Page 49144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35. He argue......
  • State v. Adamcik, Docket No. 34639
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • November 29, 2011
    ...of new information."Page 49144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35. He argue......
  • State v. Adamcik, No. 34639.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 8, 2012
    ...the presentation of new information.”144 Idaho 732, 735, 170 P.3d 397, 400 (2007) (internal citations omitted) (quoting State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007)). Adamcik presented no new information pertaining to his sentence for either offense so as to invoke Rule 35......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT