State v. Gill
150 Idaho 183
Idaho Ct. App.2010Background
- Gill pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Docket No. 36871) with retained jurisdiction; a related possession charge was dismissed.
- Gill later pled guilty to aggravated battery (Docket No. 36872) with retained jurisdiction to run concurrent with the first case.
- The district court imposed combined sentences: five years with two fixed for possession and seven years with three fixed for aggravated battery, to run concurrently, with retained jurisdiction.
- Gill sought Rule 35 reductions, arguing for a second retained jurisdiction or a reduced fixed term; the district court denied both requests.
- The district court held it had no authority to grant a second retained jurisdiction without an intervening probation period and refused to reduce fixed terms; Gill appealed, cases consolidated.
- On appeal, Gill challenges the district court’s authority for a second retained jurisdiction and the denials of his Rule 35 motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court could order a second retained jurisdiction without probation. | Gill argues authority to grant a second retained jurisdiction exists. | State contends authority requires probation intervening period. | District court lacked authority for a second retained jurisdiction without probation. |
| Whether the district court properly denied Rule 35 reductions. | Gill contends new factors justify leniency (medication changes). | State argues no sufficient grounds shown to reduce sentences. | District court did not abuse discretion; Rule 35 motions denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Reyes, 139 Idaho 502, 80 P.3d 1103 (Ct.App.2003) (statutory interpretation and standard for reviewing text)
- State v. Rhode, 133 Idaho 459, 988 P.2d 685 (Ct.App.1999) (plain meaning approach to statutory interpretation)
- State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 978 P.2d 214 (Ct.App.1999) (plain and rational meaning of statute; interpretation principles)
- State v. Escobar, 134 Idaho 387, 3 P.3d 65 (Ct.App.2000) (statutory interpretation framework; avoidance of absurd results)
- State v. Yager, 139 Idaho 680, 85 P.3d 656 (Ct.App.2004) (interpretation and policy considerations in statutory context)
- State v. Funk, 123 Idaho 967, 855 P.2d 52 (1993) (reaffirms limited inherent sentencing powers; statutory grant required)
- State v. Travis, 125 Idaho 1, 867 P.2d 234 (1994) (second retained jurisdiction issue prompted legislative amendment)