State v. Woodrow John Grant, 297 P.3d 244

Background

Grant pleaded guilty to aggravated battery in 2006, completed retained jurisdiction, and was placed on probation.
In 2009 Grant faced new charges: meth possession, domestic battery, aggravated assault, and unlawful firearm possession; counsel moved to withdraw over a plea dispute.
District court denied withdrawal; Grant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and domestic battery, with victim-impact materials introduced at sentencing.
Sentencing: five years fixed and five years indeterminate for domestic battery, concurrent with two years fixed and three years indeterminate for meth, plus revocation and execution of suspended sentence; total nine years fixed and eleven indeterminate.
Grant filed three I.C.R. 35 motions; district court denied; appeal raises counsel withdrawal, admissibility of victim statements, consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing, and Rule 35 denial.
The opinion affirms the district court on all four issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in denying withdrawal of counsel.	Grant.	Dykman.	No abuse; court properly evaluated reasons.
Whether victim impact statements were improperly admitted.	Grant argues Payne limitations apply non-capital.	Statements allowed in non-capital cases.	Statements properly admitted; harmless error analysis applied.
Whether consecutive sentencing was an abuse of discretion.	Grant contends excessive concurrent vs consecutive terms.	Court weighed deterrence, protection, rehabilitation; within discretion.	No abuse; sentences within statutory limits and supported by facts.
Whether district court properly denied I.C.R. 35 leniency.	Grant argues new information warrants reduction.	Court reasonably evaluated new information.	No abuse; denial affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Severson, 147 Idaho 694, 215 P.3d 414 (2009) (appointment of substitute counsel requires good cause; abuse review remains.)
Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745 (1983) (defendant controls plea decisions; counsel withdrawal cannot compel plea.)
Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006) (right to chosen counsel and limitations on substitute counsel.)
Clayton v. United States, 100 Idaho 896, 606 P.2d 1000 (1980) (defendant must be afforded opportunity to support substitution of counsel.)
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991) (limits on victim impact in capital cases; guidelines referenced for non-capital use.)
State v. Lampien, 148 Idaho 367, 223 P.3d 750 (2009) (non-capital victim impact statements permissible within limits.)
State v. Matteson, 123 Idaho 622, 851 P.2d 336 (1993) (non-capital victim impact statements admissible.)
State v. Campbell, 123 Idaho 922, 854 P.2d 265 (1993) (non-capital statements permissible in sentencing.)
State v. Kerrigan, 123 Idaho 508, 849 P.2d 969 (1992) (non-capital victim impact statements may be considered.)
State v. Deisz, 145 Idaho 826, 186 P.3d 682 (2008) (non-capital victim impact statements authorized.)
State v. Searcy, 118 Idaho 632, 798 P.2d 914 (1990) (foundation for victim impact statements in Idaho non-capital cases.)
State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007) (Rule 35 motions require new information to justify relief.)
State v. Farwell, 144 Idaho 732, 170 P.3d 397 (2007) (sentencing discretion and appellate review.)
Gerdon v. Rydalch, 153 Idaho 237, 241 P.3d 740 (2012) (standards for reviewing discretionary sentencing decisions.)