State v. Albert Ray Moore
156 Idaho 17
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Moore was charged with felony DUI in Sept. 2006 due to two prior felonies; one prior DUI was from North Dakota.
- In April 2007 Moore was charged with a second felony DUI, also enhanced by prior DUIs.
- Moore pled guilty to the Sept. 2006 felony DUI via Alford plea, preserving appeal rights on certain issues.
- He was sentenced to concurrent six-year terms with one-year minimums and awarded 848 days’ credit for time served before judgment.
- Appellate history: this court affirmed substantial conformance of the North Dakota conviction, but vacated the April 2007 DUI conviction for authentication issues, and noted Moore had accrued about 470 days in custody between arrest and sentencing.
- Moore later filed post-conviction and Rule 35 motions; the district court denied or resolved those, and Moore then moved for credit for time served, which the district court recalculated to 407 days, leading to this appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court's sua sponte action violated due process | Moore argues the court acted as prosecutor when it questioned prior credit. | State contends no constitutional violation; court merely clarifying proper credit under law. | No due process violation; district court did not usurp the prosecutor's role. |
| Whether credit for time served was correctly calculated under I.C. 18-309 | Moore contends prior credit was too high and should be corrected; seeks accurate calculation. | State asserts district court may determine the accurate credit; calculation must reflect time actually served. | District court properly awarded the correct amount of time actually served; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sandoval-Tena, 138 Idaho 908 (2003) (impartiality standard; district court may inquire without implying bias)
- State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860 (1989) (impartiality and due process in judicial conduct)
- Law v. Rasmussen, 104 Idaho 455 (1983) (credit for prejudgment incarceration; time actually served is required)
- State v. Rodriguez, 119 Idaho 895 (1991) (time credit limits under Rule 35; time actually served governs credit)
- United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2000) (trial court inquiries to ensure proper charges not improper inferences of bias)
- Sanchez-Lopez (United States v.), 879 F.2d 541 (9th Cir. 1989) (judge's questioning may not betray partiality when addressing rulings)
- State v. Hernandez, 120 Idaho 785 (Ct. App. 1991) (I.C. 18-309 credit limitations; actual time served rule)