State v. Steven J. Bankhead
Background
- Steven Jovall Bankhead pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property under Idaho law.
- The district court imposed a unified 12-year sentence, with a 2-year minimum, suspended it, and placed Bankhead on supervised probation.
- Bankhead violated probation multiple times; the court revoked probation, executed the sentence, then retained jurisdiction; retained jurisdiction could not be completed due to Bankhead’s mental health issues.
- The court suspended the sentence at a rider review, reinstated probation conditioned on participation in mental health treatment and completion of mental health court; Bankhead later admitted further probation violations.
- After additional violations the court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence; Bankhead made an oral I.C.R. 35 motion to reduce his sentence, which the court denied.
- Bankhead appealed, arguing the sentence was excessive and that the court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 35 motion.
Issues
| Issue | Bankhead's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 12-year unified sentence with 2-year minimum is excessive | Sentence is excessive given mental health issues and rehabilitation efforts | Sentence is within trial court discretion and reasonable under sentencing standards | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in sentencing |
| Whether denial of oral I.C.R. 35 motion was erroneous | Denial was abuse of discretion; new/additional information (mental health) warranted reduction | Rule 35 denial is discretionary; no new information justified reduction | Court affirmed denial: no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114 (1991) (sets out sentencing review standards)
- State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447 (1984) (addresses factors for reasonableness of sentence)
- State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565 (1982) (sentencing discretion framework)
- State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722 (2007) (review of entire sentence on appeal)
- State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318 (2006) (I.C.R. 35 is plea for leniency committed to court’s discretion)
- State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845 (1989) (Rule 35 motion standard)
- State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201 (2007) (defendant must show sentence excessive in light of new/additional information for Rule 35)
- State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21 (1986) (review of Rule 35 uses same criteria as original sentence review)