State v. Arthur Gene Schmierer, 367 P.3d 163

In Jan 2009 Schmierer engaged in online sexually explicit communications with persons he believed to be 13-year-old girls (both were detectives); he planned to meet and was arrested.
A grand jury returned a Superseding Indictment charging Count I: enticement (Idaho Code § 18-1509A) and Count II: attempted lewd conduct with a minor.
Pursuant to a plea deal the prosecutor filed an Amended Superseding Indictment substituting a second enticement count for Count II; the amendment was not resubmitted to the grand jury and the document was signed by the prosecutor, not the grand jury foreman.
Schmierer pleaded guilty to both enticement counts the same day, waived any charging-document defects, and received consecutive sentences (five years fixed and five years indeterminate on each count); federal prosecution was foreborne as part of the deal.
Schmierer later moved under I.C.R. 35 to correct an illegal sentence, arguing the second enticement conviction was jurisdictionally defective because the prosecutor amended the indictment without grand jury action; the district court denied relief, the Court of Appeals vacated Count II, and the Idaho Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Schmierer)	Held
Whether the district court erred denying Rule 35 motion to correct an illegal sentence	The Amended Superseding Indictment, though labeled an indictment, substantively conferred jurisdiction (it could be treated as an information); Schmierer waived defects by pleading guilty and suffered no prejudice from mislabeling.	The amendment substituted a distinct offense for Count II without grand jury action, so the charging document was jurisdictionally defective and subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be waived.	Affirmed: the charging document was substantively an information mislabeled as an indictment; no prejudice shown; court had jurisdiction and the Rule 35 motion was properly denied.

State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837 (discusses when indictment defects may be raised and when indictment absence defeats jurisdiction)
State v. Flegel, 151 Idaho 525 (indictment may not be amended to charge a different offense; defendant had not consented)
State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755 (charging document provides subject-matter jurisdiction)
State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694 (charging document must impart jurisdiction and satisfy due process)
State v. O’Neill, 118 Idaho 244 (indictment cannot be amended to allege a different and distinct offense)
State v. Fowler, 105 Idaho 642 (guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects)
Brown v. State, 159 Idaho 496 (plea without objection waives preliminary-examination objection to an information)
State v. McKeehan, 91 Idaho 808 (form defects in indictments/informations do not affect proceedings absent prejudice)