State v. Randy Lyn McKinney
153 Idaho 837
| Idaho | 2013Background
- In 1981 a Bonneville County jury convicted McKinney of premeditated murder, felony murder, conspiracy to commit murder, robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery.
- McKinney and his girlfriend planned to rob and kill Robert Bishop during a visit in Blackfoot, Idaho; McKinney shot Bishop and took his car and wallet.
- McKinney was originally sentenced to death plus additional prison terms, but a federal habeas court found ineffective assistance of counsel during sentencing, though guilt verdicts remained intact.
- In 2009 the Seventh District resentenced McKinney under an I.C.R. 11 agreement to fixed life without parole for first-degree murder, served concurrently with other sentences.
- In 2010 McKinney moved under I.C.R. 35 to challenge illegal sentences, asserting double jeopardy and violation of Idaho’s former I.C. 18-301 multi-punishment statute; the district court denied the motion.
- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed, agreeing Rule 35 challenges may address only sentences illegal on the face of the record and that McKinney’s challenges were properly deemed facially acceptable but failed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether murder and robbery sentences violate double jeopardy | McKinney | McKinney | No double jeopardy violation; separate elements support both crimes. |
| Whether substantive crimes and conspiracies violate I.C. 18-301 | McKinney | McKinney | I.C. 18-301 claims could not be decided on Rule 35; fact issues precluded review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pizzuto, 119 Idaho 742 (1991) (double jeopardy limits greater/lesser offenses)
- State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991) (overruled in part, confirms double jeopardy framework)
- State v. Thompson, 101 Idaho 430 (1980) (pleading theory for lesser included offenses)
- State v. Clements, 148 Idaho 82 (2009) (Rule 35 requires illegal-from-face-of-record sentences)
- State v. Sterley, 112 Idaho 1097 (1987) (same-act analysis for conspiracy vs. substantive offense)
- State v. Meadors, 908 P.2d 731 (N.M. 1995) (varied approaches to lesser included offenses; cognate evidence vs. elements)