State v. Anthony Reed Dailey-Schmidt

Defendant Anthony Reed Dailey‑Schmidt was convicted by jury of aggravated battery and use of a deadly weapon; he later pled guilty to a persistent violator enhancement.
District court orally pronounced an aggregate sentence of 35 years (20 years fixed, followed by up to 15 years indeterminate).
The written judgment duplicated two counts each listing a 20‑year fixed term followed by up to 15 years indeterminate, running concurrently—effectively appearing to impose separate sentences for the deadly‑weapon enhancement.
On appeal Dailey‑Schmidt argued the court abused its discretion by (1) imposing a separate sentence for the weapon enhancement and (2) imposing an excessive sentence for aggravated battery without adequate consideration of mitigating factors.
The State argued (among other points) that the written judgment contained a clerical error and that challenges to the legality of a sentence must first be presented in the district court (e.g., via I.C.R. 35 or Rule 36) before being raised on appeal.
The Court affirmed the aggravated battery sentence on abuse‑of‑discretion review, and held the enhancement/separate‑sentence issue was not properly raised on appeal and should be addressed first in the district court (without prejudice to raising it there).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dailey‑Schmidt)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the trial court improperly imposed a separate sentence for the deadly‑weapon enhancement	The written judgment imposed a separate sentence for the enhancement, which is error	The written judgment conflicts with the oral pronouncement and is a clerical error; legality challenges must first be raised in district court	Appeal not proper vehicle; claim must be raised in district court under Rule 35 or corrected under Rule 36; affirmed without prejudice
Whether the aggravated battery sentence was excessive	Sentence was excessive; court failed to give proper weight to mitigating factors (family support, remorse)	Sentence is within discretion given defendant’s extensive criminal history and violent conduct	Sentence affirmed as not an abuse of discretion

State v. Schall, 157 Idaho 488 (discussion that sentencing enhancements are part of a single sentence, not a separate offense)
Olsen v. State, 156 Idaho 922 (persistent‑violator enhancement does not create a new crime; it permits a greater sentence)
State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654 (attack on legality of sentence must be brought under Rule 35)
State v. Wallace, 116 Idaho 930 (if written order differs from oral pronouncement, correct via Rule 36)
State v. Blevins, 108 Idaho 239 (concurrent sentences for underlying crime and enhancement should be corrected by district court)
State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271 (appellate review of sentence is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771 (appellate independent review considers nature of offense, offender, public protection)
State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722 (when reviewing length of sentence, consider defendant’s entire sentence)