State v. Morris
| Decision Date | 20 April 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 12029,12029 |
| Citation | 98 Idaho 328,563 P.2d 52 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Roger Alan MORRIS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Kenneth D. Roberts, Caldwell, for defendant-appellant.
Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., Jean R. Uranga, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Appellant Roger Morris pleaded guilty in the district court to the felony offense of passing an insufficient funds check in an amount of more than $25.00. He was sentenced to prison for an indeterminate period not to exceed three years, with the court reserving jurisdiction to suspend the sentence during the first 120 days thereof. On November 10, 1972, the court suspended appellant's sentence and placed him on probation for three years. Appellant was then turned over to military authorities because he was at that time absent without leave from the Army.
The order granting probation provided as follows:
'for a period of 3 years commencing at the time defendant is released from custody by the Military Authorities, and under the following terms and conditions:
'* * *
'Special conditions: That while in the custody of the Military Authorities, defendant shall stay in contact with the Probation Officer; that defendant make monthly reports to the Court; and that defendant make complete restitution of the checks involved in this charge.'
On February 21, 1973, at the hearing to revoke his probation, appellant admitted that he had failed to make monthly reports, that he had failed to maintain contact with the probation officer, and that he had failed to make restitution for the bad checks. For these reasons the court ordered that the probation be revoked and that appellant be committed to the Idaho State Penitentiary for a period not to exceed three years, which sentence was commuted to a term of six months in the Canyon County Jail.
On July 25, 1975, appellant filed a motion to vacate the order revoking his probation on the ground that his probation could not be revoked because it had not yet begun. He appeals from the denial of that motion. The state initially contends that the denial of appellant's motion should be upheld because the motion does not comply with the statutory requirements of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. I.C. § 19-4901 et seq. Since appellant filed his motion without the assistance of counsel, and since the irregularities do not prejudice the state's ability to defend against appellant's motion, we will not consider these errors but will decide this appeal on the merits.
Appellant's position is that the trial court could not revoke his probation because the probation had not yet commenced. He relies upon that part of the order of probation which states that he is to be placed on probation
'for a period of 3 years, commencing at the time defendant is released from custody by the Military authorities.'
Appellant contends that he was again AWOL at the time of the hearing to revoke his probation, and thus he had never been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Dairy
... ... 788, 975 P.2d 841, we held that men and women who qualified for Medicaid were similarly situated for the purposes of both state and federal Medicaid laws because those laws were intended to provide qualifying individuals with access to necessary medical care. Therefore, a rule ... See Oliver , 2014NMSC003, 39, 316 P.3d 865. Also, in Morris v. Brandenburg , 2016NMSC027, 56, 376 P.3d 836, this Court determined that NMSA 1978, Section 3024, which makes it a crime to deliberately aid ... ...
-
U.S. v. Cartwright
...v. Wendowski, 278 Pa.Super.Ct. 453, 420 A.2d 628 (1980); Hart v. State, 364 So.2d 544 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 4th 1978); State v. Morris, 98 Idaho 328, 563 P.2d 52 (1977); Brown v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 21 (Ky.1977); Parrish v. Ault, 237 Ga. 401, 228 S.E.2d 808 (1976); Wright v. United States,......
-
State v. Sullivan, 81-347
... ... See, e.g., United States v. Ross (5th Cir. 1974), 503 F.2d 940; United States ex rel. Sole v. Rundle (3d Cir. 1971), 435 F.2d 721; Com. v. Wendowski (1980), 278 Pa.Super.Ct. 453, 420 A.2d 628; Hart v. Florida (Fla.App.1978), 364 So.2d 544; State v. Morris (1977), ... 98 Idaho 328, 563 P.2d 52; Brown v. Com. (Ky.1977), 564 S.W.2d 21; Parrish v. Ault (1976), 237 Ga. 401, 228 S.E.2d 808; Wright v. United States (D.C.1974), 315 A.2d 839; Martin v. State (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971), 243 So.2d 189; Coffey v. Commonwealth (1969), 209 Va. 760, 167 S.E.2d 343; ... ...
-
Venable v. State
...667 (1967); Wright v. United States, 315 A.2d 839 (D.C.1974); State v. Stafford, 437 So.2d 232 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1983); State v. Morris, 98 Idaho 328, 563 P.2d 52 (1977); Brown v. Commonwealth, 564 S.W.2d 21 (Ky.Ct.App.1978); Commonwealth v. Wendowski, 278 Pa.Super. 453, 420 A.2d 628 (1980);......