State v. Tisdale
| Decision Date | 07 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 13797,13797 |
| Citation | 654 P.2d 1389,103 Idaho 836 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Charles Patrick TISDALE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Jon J. Shindurling, May, May, Sudweeks, Shindurling & Stubbs, Twin Falls, for defendant-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen. by Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Recently we urged district judges in criminal cases "to identify on the record the particular reasons for their sentencing decisions." State v. Gonzales, 103 Idaho 54, 56, 644 P.2d 376, 378 (Ct.App.1982). Today we are asked to decide whether a sentence of imprisonment for a felony should be vacated because the district judge gave no reason for his sentencing decision. We hold that it should, and we remand the case for resentencing.
Upon a plea of guilty, Charles Patrick Tisdale was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. The offense occurred when Tisdale, who had quarreled with his wife in a Twin Falls bar, found her in an automobile with another man. Tisdale confronted the man and shot him. After initially charging second degree murder, then first degree murder, the prosecutor ultimately reduced the charge to voluntary manslaughter and obtained Tisdale's plea of guilty. A presentence report disclosed both mitigating and aggravating information concerning the offense and Tisdale's background. Tisdale requested probation and adduced evidence in support of his request during a sentencing hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the district judge sentenced Tisdale to an indeterminate term, not exceeding ten years, in custody of the Board of Correction. The judge did not state at that time, nor did he enter of record at any other time, the reasons for his decision.
On appeal, Tisdale contends that the court erred by failing to state reasons for the sentence, and that the sentence was excessive. These contentions, taken together, frame the dispositive question in this appeal--whether we should undertake to review a sentence for excessiveness when no reasons for the sentence have been stated of record. Our standards for appellate review of sentences are set forth in State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982). In that case we said that if a sentence is within the statutory maximum, it will not be deemed excessive unless the appellant shows that, under any reasonable view of the facts, the term of confinement is longer than appears necessary, at the time of sentencing, to accomplish the primary objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of deterrence, rehabilitation or retribution.
Our philosophy in Toohill was that a term of confinement should be tailored to the purposes for which the sentence is imposed. We recognized that Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710.
The standards enunciated in Toohill depend, for their proper application, upon a reasoned statement by the sentencing judge of his view on the case. Our role as an appellate court is to see that sentencing discretion is soundly exercised in accord with applicable criteria. However, where--as in the present case--the court below gives no reason for a sentence, we cannot ascertain whether a term of confinement has been tailored to the purposes for which the court imposed the sentence. Neither can we determine whether the Toohill criteria have been duly considered in fixing the length of the sentence. Finally, where probation is an issue in the case, failure to state the reasons for a sentence leaves the appellate court to speculate whether the legislative criteria established in I.C. § 19-2521 have been followed.
In short, when a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shelton v. Diamond Intern. Corp.
...and I know not why this particular case now at bench was not proper for assignment to the Court of Appeals. Similarly, in State v. Tisdale, 103 Idaho 836, 654 P.2d 1389, the Court of Appeals, in recognition of the obvious, that is, that it would be the court handling all sentence reviews ot......
-
State v. Osborn
...that the trial court abused its discretion. Appellant urges us to adopt the reasoning of the court of appeals in State v. Tisdale, 103 Idaho 836, 654 P.2d 1389 (1982), which requires district courts to set forth in writing the reasons for imposing a particular sentence. Although the trial c......
-
State v. Nield
...of Appeals remains undisturbed. The Court of Appeals examined this issue in view of their previous decision in State v. Tisdale, 103 Idaho 836, 654 P.2d 1389 (Ct.App.1982), wherein the Court of Appeals required that the sentencing court "indicate of record his reasons for the sentence then ......
-
Middlekauff v. Lake Cascade, Inc.
... ... Heller & Co.; John G. Pierce, Trustee; Bric of America, Inc., Defendants-Appellants, ... Intermountain State Bank, an Idaho corporation; Dean Dishman and Patricia Dishman, husband and wife; and Leonard Mallea and Patricia Mallea, husband and wife, ... ...