State v. Miranda G. Hardy
Background
- Miranda G. Hardy pleaded guilty in Docket No. 44679 to DUI (repeat) and received a unified seven-year sentence with three years determinate; the court retained jurisdiction and later suspended the sentence and placed her on probation twice after violations.
- Hardy admitted subsequent probation violations, including committing new offenses that resulted in Docket No. 44680.
- In Docket No. 44680 Hardy pleaded guilty to a second repeated-DUI, receiving a concurrent unified seven-year sentence with two years determinate.
- Hardy filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions in both cases seeking sentence reductions; the district court held a hearing and denied the motions.
- Hardy appealed: in 44679 she challenged the denial of her I.C.R. 35 motion; in 44680 she challenged the excessiveness of her sentence.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed both the denial of the I.C.R. 35 motion and the sentence as not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused its discretion by denying I.C.R. 35 motion in 44679 | Hardy argued her sentence was excessive and sought reduction based on information submitted after sentencing | State argued the denial was within the court's discretion and no new information made the sentence excessive | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion; I.C.R. 35 denial upheld |
| Whether sentence in 44680 was excessive | Hardy argued the concurrent seven-year sentence (two years determinate) was excessive | State argued the sentence was reasonable under sentencing standards and defendant's record | Affirmed — sentence not excessive; within trial court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (Ct. App. 1991) (standards for reviewing sentencing decisions)
- State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Ct. App. 1984) (factors for sentencing reasonableness)
- State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982) (sentencing review principles)
- State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (2007) (consider defendant’s entire sentence when reviewing length)
- State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 144 P.3d 23 (2006) (I.C.R. 35 is plea for leniency)
- State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 771 P.2d 66 (Ct. App. 1989) (I.C.R. 35 within court’s discretion)
- State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007) (I.C.R. 35 requires new or additional information to show sentence excessive)