State v. Douglas B. Austin
Background
- Douglas B. Austin was convicted of second-degree murder in 1982 and received an indeterminate life sentence.
- Years later Austin filed two Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions asserting his sentence was illegal because the sentencing court (1) did not articulate consideration of factors in Idaho Code § 19-2521 and (2) did not order a psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522 prior to sentencing.
- Austin also moved for leave to file an untimely notice of appeal, claiming trial counsel failed to timely file an appeal from the original judgment.
- The district court denied both Rule 35 motions and denied leave to file an untimely appeal; Austin appealed those denials.
- The appellate court reviewed whether the sentence was illegal as a question of law and whether the trial court had jurisdiction to permit a late appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence was illegal because court did not recite § 19-2521 factors | Austin: sentence illegal because court failed to articulate consideration of statutory factors | State: no requirement that trial court recite statutory factors or give reasons when imposing sentence | Court: No; recitation of § 19-2521 factors or reasons not required; sentence not illegal |
| Whether sentence was illegal for failure to order psychological evaluation under I.C. § 19-2522 | Austin: sentencing without mandated psych evaluation rendered sentence illegal | State: § 19-2522 was not yet effective at sentencing date | Court: No error; § 19-2522 became effective July 1, 1982 but Austin was sentenced March 26, 1982 |
| Whether district court could grant leave to file an untimely notice of appeal years after judgment | Austin: counsel failed to file timely notice; he should be allowed to file late | State: district court lacked jurisdiction to extend appeal period after judgment became final | Court: No jurisdiction to extend time; denial of leave affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Josephson, 124 Idaho 286, 858 P.2d 825 (Ct. App. 1993) (sentence illegality is a question of law freely reviewable on appeal)
- State v. Rodriguez, 119 Idaho 895, 811 P.2d 505 (Ct. App. 1991) (same principle on Rule 35 review)
- State v. Flowers, 150 Idaho 568, 249 P.3d 367 (2011) (trial court not required to recite statutory sentencing factors or give reasons)
- State v. Hartwig, 150 Idaho 326, 246 P.3d 979 (2011) (trial court jurisdiction to amend judgment expires when judgment becomes final)