State v. Pierce
| Decision Date | 10 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 12358,12358 |
| Citation | 100 Idaho 57,593 P.2d 392 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Barbara PIERCE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Jeffrey M. Wilson, Matthews, Lee & Wilson, Boise, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Steve Parry, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent.
Before SHEPARD, C. J., DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., and SCOGGIN, J. Pro Tem.
Following a jury trial, appellant Barbara Pierce was convicted of second degree burglary and sentenced to the Ada County jail for one year, subject to review within 120 days, and probation for three years beginning with her release from jail. She brings this appeal arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing that sentence. We affirm.
From the record on appeal, appellant was apparently engaged in a scheme of shoplifting clothing from a K-Mart store in Boise and then returning the clothing to another Boise K-Mart store for a cash refund. In the process she was arrested along with Cherie and Edwin Dixson. Cherie later pleaded guilty to second degree burglary. Edwin was charged with aiding and abetting the burglary, but that charge was later dismissed.
Prior to the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor's office submitted to the district court a "written recommendation" on sentencing which summarized the trial testimony of various witnesses, concluded that the appellant "was motivated to take the merchandise for a profit" and that "one use of these cash moneys was for the purchase of food stamps," and urged that the appellant be sentenced to the penitentiary for two years with the court retaining jurisdiction for 120 days or sentenced to six months incarceration in the Ada County jail. At the sentencing hearing the prosecutor made reference to the criminal record and involvement of Edwin Dixson. The prosecutor mentioned Dixson's criminal record while explaining why this case was handled by a special "major crimes unit" of the prosecutor's office and referred to Dixson's involvement in the crime while emphasizing that the appellant was not merely shoplifting but was involved in "a planned operation" by "a band of people" who supported themselves by such thievery.
Before imposing the sentence, the district court told the appellant: "I am satisfied that you were involved in stealing for profit beyond this single incident (and that) you associated yourself with people who engaged themselves in planned theft." The court acknowledged, however, that the appellant was young and had not been formally charged with or convicted of any other crimes. The district court then sentenced the appellant to one year in the Ada County jail, subject to review in 120 days, and probation for three years beginning with her release from jail. The court also ordered that she be given work release privileges during the 120 day period in order for her to continue her present job and that she take the necessary steps to obtain her Graduate Equivalency Degree. In imposing the sentence the district court stated that it sought to balance the public interest, which demanded a harsh punishment in order to deter this type of criminal activity, and the appellant's individual interest, which suggested leniency.
The appellant brings this appeal arguing (1) that the sentence imposed by the district court was based on improper statements by the prosecutor concerning Edwin Dixson and on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hoffman
...rules which govern at trial are not rigidly applied during the sentencing proceeding. State v. Pizzuto, supra; State v. Pierce, 100 Idaho 57, 593 P.2d 392 (1979). The statements admissible at trial are certainly appropriate to be considered by the trial court at Hoffman next claims that the......
-
State v. Rose
...it and to disregard the irrelevant and unreliable. State v. Jeppesen, 138 Idaho 71, 75, 57 P.3d 782, 786 (2002) (citing State v. Pierce, 100 Idaho 57, 593 P.2d 392 (1979)). Other jurisdictions that have decided the question appear to be unanimous that Crawford does not change the due proces......
-
State v. Johnson
...which may be presented to it during the sentencing process and to disregard the irrelevant and unreliable." State v. Pierce, 100 Idaho 57, 58, 593 P.2d 392, 393 (1979). Hearsay evidence in written form is admissible at a sentencing hearing where the defendant is afforded an opportunity to p......
-
State v. McCoggle
...the irrelevant and unreliable evidence, and to properly weigh the remaining evidence which may be in conflict. State v. Pierce, 100 Idaho 57, 58, 593 P.2d 392, 393 (1979). McCoggle does not argue, nor does the record support finding, that the court placed undue consideration on the unproven......