State v. Moore
268 P.3d 471
Idaho Ct. App.2011Background
- Moore was charged with DUI in two cases (2006 and 2007), each enhanced to a felony under Idaho Code § 18-8005(5) based on prior DUIs including a North Dakota conviction.
- Moore challenged the North Dakota conviction as not a substantially conforming foreign conviction and as constitutionally defective; district court denied, Moore pled conditional guilty reserving appellate rights.
- In the other DUI case Moore went to trial; North Dakota conviction evidence admitted over objections and later appealed.
- This Court previously affirmed the North Dakota conviction was substantially conforming and rejected constitutional challenges, but vacated the other case’s judgment because documentary proof of the North Dakota conviction was not properly authenticated.
- On remand, the district court determined the reservations in the conditional guilty plea were not as broad as Moore claimed and stated an intent to reiterate the original sentence, leading to an amended judgment that Moore appealed.
- The State later moved to amend the judgment for a clerical correction; the district court entered a second amended judgment correcting the sentence to reflect the intended six-year unified sentence, which Moore challenges as improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court could enter a second amended judgment under Rule 36. | Moore argues Rule 36 only allows clerical corrections. | State contends remand authority permitted the correction. | Yes, district court could correct the judgment under Rule 36. |
| Whether the correction was clerical or a substantive judicial error. | Moore: correction altered the sentence as originally intended. | Correction merely effectuated the court’s stated remand intent. | Correction was clerical, not a judicial error. |
| Scope of remand governing sentencing intent on remand. | Remand allowed withdrawal of plea if relief in the other case obtained. | Remand did not constitute resentencing; no new sentence. | Remand did not require resentencing; no substantive change. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silsby v. Kepner, 140 Idaho 410 (2004) (clarifies clerical vs. judicial errors; limits Rule 36 use in criminal sentencing)
- State v. Phillips, 99 Idaho 354 (1978) (limits Rule 36 to clerical errors; prohibits unwarranted change of decision)
- State v. Allen, 144 Idaho 875 (Ct.App.2007) (Rule 36 cannot amend a sentence to reflect unstated intent)
- State v. Wallace, 116 Idaho 930 (Ct.App.1989) (remind that remand for intent does not re-sentence)
- State v. Payan, 128 Idaho 866 (Ct.App.1996) (discusses proper mechanism for relief following remand)