State v. Passons, 417 P.3d 240

In 2012 Russell Allen Passons was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count of burglary; one aggravated assault count alleged use of a knife and the prosecutor sought enhancement under I.C. § 19-2520.
The district court sentenced Passons to 20 years (10 fixed) on the enhanced aggravated assault count, reflecting application of § 19-2520.
Passons appealed his conviction (affirmed by the Court of Appeals) and later filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion claiming his enhanced sentence was illegal under double jeopardy principles.
The district court denied the Rule 35 motion, citing Court of Appeals precedent (State v. Hernandez); the Court of Appeals affirmed, applying stare decisis and finding precedent not manifestly wrong.
The Idaho Supreme Court granted review to decide whether application of § 19-2520 to enhance Passons’s sentence violated the constitutional protection against double jeopardy and to resolve related procedural objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Passons’s Rule 35 motion was procedurally barred (jurisdiction / res judicata)	Passons argued he timely challenged legality of his sentence under I.C.R. 35	State argued motion was an untimely collateral attack / precluded by prior appeal	Court: Not barred; Rule 35 properly invoked; prior appeal did not preclude a sentence-legality challenge (Kerrigan distinguishes sentence from conviction)
Whether applying I.C. § 19-2520 to enhance sentence for aggravated assault violated double jeopardy (multiple punishments for same offense)	Passons: Enhancement punished same offense twice because the deadly-weapon element overlaps with aggravated-assault elements (knife use), so cumulative punishment violates double jeopardy absent legislative authorization	State: § 19-2520 is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate substantive offense; Smith controls—no double jeopardy problem	Court: Affirmed—§ 19-2520 authorizes enhanced punishment for the underlying crime and does not create a separate offense; no double jeopardy violation under controlling precedent (Smith)

State v. Smith, 103 Idaho 135, 645 P.2d 369 (Idaho 1982) (held § 19-2520 is a sentencing enhancement, not a separate crime, so it does not raise double jeopardy issues)
Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359 (U.S. 1983) (explained cumulative punishments under separate statutes are permissible only where legislative intent clearly authorizes them)
State v. Kerrigan, 143 Idaho 185, 141 P.3d 1054 (Idaho 2006) (distinguished challenge to sentence from challenge to conviction; Rule 35 jurisdiction affirmed)
United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (U.S. 1997) (sentencing enhancements increase penalty for the manner of committing the convicted crime, not punishment for an unconvicted offense)