State v. Kohoutek
| Decision Date | 04 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 13209,13209 |
| Citation | 101 Idaho 698,619 P.2d 1151 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Johnathon KOHOUTEK, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Eric T. Nordlof, Public Defender, Coeur d'Alene, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lance Churchill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Three weeks after a jury trial whereat defendant-appellant John Kohoutek was convicted of armed robbery he was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed thirty years. Kohoutek then agreed to cooperate with the prosecution by testifying against his co-defendant, Douglas Evenson, in exchange for the prosecuting attorney's promise to recommend that his sentence be reduced to ten years. Subsequently, Evenson pled guilty and was sentenced to ten years. Kohoutek and Evenson had identical criminal records having been co-defendants on their one previous felony conviction for receiving stolen property. On Kohoutek's Motion for Reduction of Sentence pursuant to I.C.R. 35, the same trial judge that sentenced Evenson reduced Kohoutek's sentence from thirty to eighteen years.
In pronouncing the reduced sentence, the trial court cited several considerations including the defendant's attempt to suborn perjury, threatening people in order to obtain perjured support for his alibi, and his having criminal charges for issuing checks without sufficient funds dropped in consideration of his likely incarceration for this robbery conviction. Kohoutek raises the issue on appeal whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant.
The sentence imposed in this case is within the statutory limit prescribed by the Idaho State Legislature in I.C. § 18-6503. Where a sentence is imposed within the statutory limits, an appellant has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the court which imposed the sentence. State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); State v. Chapa, 98 Idaho 54, 558 P.2d 83 (1976); State v. Cunningham, 97 Idaho 650, 551 P.2d 605 (1976); State v. Ogata, 95 Idaho 309, 508 P.2d 141 (1973).
It is proper for a trial court in sentencing a defendant to consider evidence of his participation in criminal conduct (such as attempt to suborn perjury) for which he has not been convicted or for which an information has not been secured. U. S. v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 98 S.Ct. 2610, 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978); State v. Cunningham, supra.
The United States Supreme Court in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 243, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 2023, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), held that "(t)he constitution permits qualitative differences in meting out punishment and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. LaMere
...has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the court which imposed the sentence." Idaho v. Kohoutek, 101 Idaho 698, 699, 619 P.2d 1151, 1152 (1980) (citations The record shows that the trial judge held a lengthy sentencing hearing and considered both probation and ......
-
State v. Lankford
... ... § 19-2515(c), (d), (e); State v. Creech, 105 Idaho 362, 670 P.2d 463 (1983), cert. den., 465 U.S. 1051, 104 S.Ct. 1327, 79 L.Ed.2d 722 (1984), and therefore the district court was not bound by the recommendations of the prosecuting attorney. In State v. Kohoutek, 101 Idaho 698, 619 P.2d 1151 (1980), we held that there was no abuse of a district court's discretion when it proposed a sentence different from that recommended by the prosecuting attorney. The district court had sufficient evidence before it and did not abuse its discretionary authority to ... ...
-
People v. Adams
...(Fla.App., 1986), reh. den. 508 So.2d 13 (Fla., 1987); Daytona Beach v. Del Percio, 476 So.2d 197 (Fla., 1985); State v. Kohoutek, 101 Idaho 698, 699, 619 P.2d 1151 (1980) (trial court may consider defendant's attempt to suborn perjury); State v. Bragg, 388 N.W.2d 187, 191 (Iowa App., 1986)......
-
State v. Dunlap
...to defendant's dangerousness to society and to his character and were therefore not unfairly prejudicial); State v. Kohoutek, 101 Idaho 698, 699, 619 P.2d 1151, 1152 (1980) ("It is proper for a trial court in sentencing a defendant to consider evidence of his participation in criminal condu......