State v. Kingsley
| Citation | 590 P.2d 1014,99 Idaho 868 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12753,12753 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stephen Jon KINGSLEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Klaus Wiebe, Public Defender, Boise, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
On May 19, 1976, upon appellant's plea of guilty to first degree burglary, District Judge W. E. Smith imposed a sentence of an indeterminate period of not to exceed five years to the custody of the State Board of Correction, retaining jurisdiction of the court for one hundred and twenty days. Appellant was incarcerated and evaluated at the penitentiary during the retained jurisdiction. The court, in September, 1976, exercised its retained jurisdiction, entering a probation order, which suspended execution of the sentence subject to continued compliance with the conditions of probation.
Appellant, in early February, 1977, committed and thereafter entered pleas of guilty to two felonies of receiving stolen property. The maximum sentence provided for such crime is five years. He was charged with and admitted probation violation for the commission of one of the crimes. District Judge Smith presided in all three matters. Revocation of the order of probation and sentence suspension in the burglary case was ordered and appellant was remanded to custody of the State Board of Correction for the remainder of the previously imposed indeterminate sentence of not to exceed five years. In one receiving stolen property case, an indeterminate sentence of not to exceed five years was imposed, to run concurrently with the burglary sentence; in the other receiving stolen property case, an indeterminate sentence of not to exceed five years was imposed, to run consecutively to the other two sentences. The court ordered credit to be given on the current sentences for time already spent in incarceration by reason thereof.
Appellant contends the consecutive aspect of the one sentence is unreasonably harsh and excessive, constituting an abuse of discretion by the sentencing judge.
Sentencing is a matter committed to the discretion of the trial judge. Reasonableness is a fundamental requirement in the exercise of sentencing discretion. State v. Ogata, 95 Idaho 309, 508 P.2d 141 (1973); State v. Kauffman, 94 Idaho 20, 480 P.2d 614 (1971).
This Court has the power and duty to review. State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 582 P.2d 728 (1978).
Appellant's arguments are directed to: his youth, what he describes as his single prior adult felony conviction, his contention that the record discloses a good rehabilitation potential, and the adverse effect on rehabilitation of a potentially lengthy incarceration. Appellant characterizes this length as nearly ten years and derives this by adding the five-year maximums of one of the prior sentences and the consecutive sentence. Appellant argues that the consecutive sentence will operate to keep him in a penal institution for such a protracted duration that it will only serve to compound and accelerate his reactions against the norms of society and destroy any chance he has to make any positive effort toward rehabilitation, the latter already having been reduced in its avenues of exercise because of institutional confinement.
Appellant was age 19 at the time of the three commitments. He had spent two-thirds of his adult life in confinement for crime. The burglary conviction was his first. He has a lengthy juvenile record of criminally proscribed conduct, dating from 1971 through 1975. The conduct included larceny, burglary, and forgery. Three lengthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Olsen
...to determine whether abuse of discretion occurred below. See State v. Dillon, 100 Idaho 723, 604 P.2d 737 (1979); State v. Kingsley, 99 Idaho 868, 590 P.2d 1014 (1979). Even though the defendant's criminal record was clean during the years immediately preceding the crimes charged in this ac......
-
State v. Dillon
...has the burden of showing a clear abuse thereof on appeal. State v. Rice, 99 Idaho 752, 588 P.2d 951 (1979); State v. Kingsley, 99 Idaho 868, 590 P.2d 1014 (1979). In exercising that discretion, reasonableness is a fundamental requirement. State v. Kingsley, supra. An examination of the rec......
-
State v. Talley
...counts as outlined above. A sentence must be reasonable and is subject to modification on review where appropriate. State v. Kingsley, 99 Idaho 868, 590 P.2d 1014 (1979); State v. Shideler, 103 Idaho 593, 651 P.2d 527 (1982). Further, a term of confinement should be tailored to the purpose ......