Hays v. State

timely in a granted con- cases right present The trial court could have their to tinuance, do, his which he refused to fashion. This case was not determined be- upheld by ma- solely refusal is and affirmed its merits of low on because opinion. The trial court could have jority plaintiffs. per- action or non-action It is put permitted to plaintiffs evidence haps height irony that the case have require- which would not satisfied the prepare which counsel failed to and failed Thereafter, prima ments of a case. to the trial follow orders of court one facie court, the trial he would have noted plaintiff alleging profes- which grant had no alternative to directed malpractice legal his sional former coun- defendant, verdict to the and also award sel. attorney costs and fees to defendant. See I would affirm the orders of the trial 50(a). court, trial I.R.C.P. As noted dismissing complaint preju- court insolvent, plaintiffs and hence were there dice, grant attorney and would costs and prospect was little if defendant re- appeal to fees on the defendant. covering any attorney or such costs fees. assert, plaintiffs If as now the trial court permitted

should have them while trial proceeding to solicit and obtain still a expert to testify

third witness as desired plaintiffs, right of the defendant depose or otherwise examine such witness HAYS, Lee Mazur Plaintiff-Appellant, abrogated. would have been Defendant right properly would be denied the adequately prepare his case. Idaho, STATE of Doherty, Jensen Defendant-Respondent. (1981), the Court held that the No. 16478. granting involuntary of an lies dismissal within the sound discretion the trial of Appeals Court of Idaho. court, imposition and that of the sanction Dec. 1987. will stand absent abuse of that discretion. necessary “It Court stated: final Review Feb. Denied 1988.* protect recourse available the Court processes litigants

its and other from used, remedy sparingly

abuse. It is a to be always

but it is I hold available.” would

that there is no such abuse of discretion

upon the record in case. The the instant amply

trial court his reasons for set forth order, supported and those reasons are

in the in Viehwig record. As stated

Thompson, 103

(Ct.App.1982): public “A out well-founded

cry delay jus over the administration requires judges

tice now all levels

play managing an active role in their calen

dars.” The record that the trial discloses doing precisely

court was that. regarding

While there is much to be said

the desirability adjudicating a case on its

merits, such if it should not be the result

deprives party of the adverse substantial

rights, deprives litigants

* Opinion dissenting pub from Denial of Review lished at 750 P.2d 367. Churchill, Boise, D. plaintiff-

Lance for appellant. Jones, Gen., Atty.

Jim Minert, David R. Gen., Deputy Atty. for defendant-respon- dent.

SWANSTROM, Judge. appeal, this Lee asks us to re- view summary the district court’s dismissal post-conviction of his application. We must determine whether Hays’ applica- tion for relief raises material issues of fact requiring an evidentiary hearing. We af- part part. firm in and vacate in case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

In April, Hays pled guilty to four counts of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor. He received an indeterminate life Hays appealed sentence. his sentence. appeal While the pending, Hays ap was plied post-conviction relief. The sen appeal stayed awaiting tence the out application, appeal come of the but the Hays’ application later dismissed. raised (1) grounds six main for relief: the district jurisdiction court lacked judg enter the conviction; (2) ment of the sentence was unlawful due lack opportunity (3) psychiatric treatment; Hays did not re counsel; (4) ceive effective assistance of (5) plea agreement; the state breached the sentence was unconstitutional because of its disproportionality; and the state’s allege physical information failed to con required assertedly tact with the victims as I.C. 18-6607.1 Both and the summary state moved for under I.C. 19-4906. granted Hays’

The district motion court part granted state’s motion on and part all other issues. The successful that the motion was contention allegation physical an information lacked Hays' redesignated 1. This statute was in force the time of amended 18-1508. judgment of conviction. It since been support Hays provided no facts granting part, the district contact. guilty pleas were con allegation; that the judgment of court vacated testimony guilt; at sen clusive counts, upheld two count on three Hays’ actions tencing confirmed that oc alleged contact between which Nonetheless, Hays de curred Idaho. Both sides moved the victim. plea guilty does not clares that a valid mo- judgment. Both alter or amend jurisdictional Tip State defects. waive ap- The state has not tions denied. were ton, appeals, asserting that the pealed. Hays granting in not an evi- erred district court acknowledge accuracy readily hearing remaining grounds dentiary by Hays, but find his point of cited law application. of his language The in conclusion inaccurate. by Hays is: Tipton upon relied procedural is- some Initially, we address voluntarily guilty, A valid plea by Hays. He contends that the sues raised understanding^ given, nonju- waives all determining erred in the facts district court defenses, risdictional by resorting the criminal trial record defects statutory, in wholly upon whether constitutional relying the civil instead of 19-4906(c). guilty plea prior proceedings. A valid in I.C. He record as outlined charged facts judicial a admission of all evidentiary also that at least an contends information. A val- by the indictment or hearing required because the state did plea guilt. is conclusive as to alleged guilty id not controvert his facts. trial, It is a waiver of and obviates the First, find no we error in the use necessity prosecution coming the for- underlying criminal Al record. ward with evidence. though post-conviction application 673, (emphasis Id. at 587 P.2d at 308 add action, independent initiates a new civil ed). language reg has been Although this why judge there is no reason that cases, ularly subsequent cited in there has judicial action cannot take notice of explanation been no clear of what consti E.g., criminal case. record in the Larsen v. “jurisdictional tutes defects.” 602, (1970). May, Idaho 468 P.2d 93 866 Second, parties since both for sum moved Dawn, early v. 41 case of State 19-4906(c), mary disposition under I.C. 199, (1925), Idaho P. 279 was the first 239 permitted the district court was to deter recognize case a valid guilty that genuine mine whether issues of material plea jurisdictional. waives defect not and, not, fact par existed if whether However, noted, either court the Dawn as did ty was entitled to as matter of Tipton, plea guilty valid that a is a Summary law. appropri dismissal charged judicial admission of all facts alleged ate applicant’s if the even facts are complaint jurisdic A or information. because, uncontroverted the state while alleged when the facts tional defect exists the underlying regarded facts must be statute, are not or where made criminal true, applicant’s conclusions need not there is a to state facts essential to failure State, accepted. Phillips be so v. 108 Ida charged. establish the offense State (1985). ho P.2d 27 700 Our further (1965); Grady, 89 Idaho 404 analysis Hays’ appeal requires individu Cole, 31 Idaho P. 131 State remaining grounds discussion of the Further, alized (1918); 7(b). jurisdictional I.C.R. application. alleged defects exist where the facts show jurisdic no on their face that the court has I. JURISDICTION charged, allega or the tion offense charged Hays alleges application in his tions fail to show that the offense jurisdiction juris territorial Idaho court had no because the was committed within the pled guilty Pyne, criminal acts to which he oc- diction of court. State (1983); curred California. The state maintains State v. (1967). plea guilty any jurisdic- Mowrey, waived entry defects. The district waived tional court concluded Such defects are not guilty hand, plea. theOn charges upheld a valid three the conviction on guilty plea all allegations admits essential remaining indicated, one. As the state including facts, jurisdictional relieving thus appealed has not express action. We government of the burden of making opinion no as to whether former proof. Tipton, supra; State v. State v. 18-6607 contained a contact re- Dawn, supra; generally quirement. see C.J.S. 424(2), 424(4), 424(7) Criminal Law §§ II. PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT

Here, application charged alleged the information his sen tence was unlawful because committing Idaho correc criminal acts within Koo tional facilities County psychological lack tenai the State of treat Idaho. The programs. ment He maintains record reveals that information was district holding court erred in not arraignment read to an evi and he re dentiary hearing to sponded validity determine the that he understood the contents. of this claim. The judge simply The trial court’s order properly informed nothing noted that there if in the record pled guilty it would be an admis support to the Hays sion the contention and that alleged; Hays of truth of the facts available, had other although recourse responded not that he understood this. Fur ther, ruling, proceeding. so Hays the the dis judge admitted to that he Gee, trict court relied on State charged committed the he acts was with— petitioner a lewd and where lascivious conduct with a minor in that, apparently made a claim as a sexual judge Idaho. The trial guide followed the offender, categorized he was differently of assuring lines I.C.R. himself of parole purposes, that Hays’ knowledge being he was proceedings, of the their given “no to consequences remedial treatment effect a and the voluntariness of his cure for pleas. alleged status.” Id. sentencing, At at testimony was elicit granted at 379. The ed from district court investigating the officer that the summary judgment to acts the state and the Hays occurred in Idaho. did not dis Supreme pute Court affirmed. its brief dis those Photographs supporting facts. issue, cussion of this the “If Court noted: the information were admitted into evi Gee is in need of medical attention and is objections dence with no except for one care, receiving adequate not is packet. he not with Hays objected to the admission of However, out recourse. the issue not relevance; is packet grounds on the of properly raised in the instant action.” Id. claiming particular photographs that those We cannot tell from this statement wheth taken in were California. er thought the Court the issue was not We fully conclude that aware properly framed with sufficient al factual he admitting jurisdictional the facts legations or whether simply the Court was alleged the guilty plea information. The saying post-conviction that an action for precludes Hays collaterally attacking from relief was place not the to raise the issue at jurisdiction. the genuine court’s No ques- all. tion by Hays; was raised the state was Here, issue, orally ruling the on this properly summary entitled judgment to on legal judge pragmatic district made his and note, however, the issue. We clear. reasons successfully attacked other defects in the information juris- talking any- which he contends were I don’t think we are about charges brought, thing legality dictional. Of the the four that has to do with the or agreed judge constitutionality trial judgment that at least the or of charges imposed. may three failed contain facts the sentence that was relating to judge talking constitutionality what the deemed to an be or be about the of essential element legality implementation crime— Accordingly, judge by contact. the trial Department vacat- sentence Correc- judgment ed the I is sub- conviction those tions. But don’t believe that a instances, questions about properly resolution ject this court should be implemented defendant other a is be can in. The how sentence involved available, post-con- and those just conveniently litigated some of remedies cita- are at least obvious in the remedies viction actions heard sentenc- case that was made tion the federal ing court. here. post-conviction Idaho’s re Under think, frankly, you if But I don’t scheme, any person may lief seek relief if again, sense that a want to use common “unlawfully he claims that he is held Idaho, County, merely judge in Kootenai custody” or the conviction or sen “that and a pronounced because subject to at tence is otherwise collateral defendant, in a on a should be sentence upon alleged any ground tack error has to where he look situation heretofore under common available Department of Correc- merits of how writ, law, motion, statutory peti or County implementing is tions in Ada tion, proceeding, remedy____” really you what talk- that’s are 18-4901(5) post- Because the about, ing being how sentence procedure act construed as an implemented, that I think is the critical corpus, expansion of habeas of the writ constitutionally in the and le- distinction form, governs properly substance over gality the sentence itself versus the raised be considered the dis issue carrying implementation, out of the requiring separate trict court without deny going I’m motion sentence. State, filed. Still writ to be point. on that State, Dionne (1974); judge recognized that a failure (1969). Thus, 235, 459 provide psychologi Board of to Correction provided the court could have the district cal pedophiles treatment for convicted Hays.2 recourse to available would sexual offenders not render concerning question may A fact exist

either as of the conviction or pronounced, psychological unlawful. If treatment is le issue of treatment. gally required the United Dis When the of conviction was en States —as against Hays trict Idaho has if the lewd and Court for held —and tered for lascivious conduct, inadequate, or is treatment is nonexistent into the ambit of I.C. he came remedy then proper per is to mandate rea 20-223. That statute mandates that § sonably adequate treatment. Balla v. Ida crimes sons convicted of certain receive Correction, ho State Bd. F.Supp. psychological before examinations release of (D.Idaho 1984). There is for application no call parole. Hays filed his on When setting aside either the or the October, 1984, concededly there sentence. psychological facili lack of treatment and through the Board of ties available Correc

Nevertheless, the courts of this state brought This to the fore tion. issue was must, do, provide and a forum for claims of Bd. Balla v. Idaho State Cor front in prisoners deprivation who assert sub of of rection, supra. Balia In the United States rights by prison stantial Tradi officials. for Idaho held that I.C. District Court tionally, are in such actions the form of constitutionally protect 20-223 created a petitions corpus brought for habeas § relief expectation psychological ed of care and county where the correctional center See, that the state treatment. The court found e.g., State, located. Clemens v. provided care this area. no rehabilitative (Ct.App.1987) (pe of The court the Board Correction alleging adequate tition lack of ordered medical care). inadequa care psychological to solve the Often this is the most convenient Therefore, appli filed his litigating forum for such In other cies. when issues. may suggest judicial economy, 2. This a meritorious matter is not to that the district court in and County given change pursuant Kootenai must hear a matter which venue to I.R.C.P. be 40(e). of conveniently could more be heard in Ada Coun- ty. In the interests of convenience witnesses cation, psychological treatment lack OF III.ASSISTANCE COUNSEL an cognizable would have created issue strenuously alleges most he post-conviction proceedings. had ineffective assistance of counsel. This throughout claim is intertwined allega- directive, Following the federal court’s answer, Hays’ application. tions of In its plans developed the Board of Correction the state attached the affidavit of provide psychological care and treat trial This counsel. affidavit counters some ment. The record official acts allegations memorandum Idaho, United States District Court affidavit, and thus bringing some matters judicial which we take notice under Hays’ major to issue. We have boiled con- I.C. 9-101 and I.R.E. show the fol points: (1) tentions down to four main lowing. July, adopted the court investigate allegations counsel failed to plans the Board or of Correction’s information, missing in the physi- thus October, implementation their dered “element;” (2) Hays cal contact pled guilty October, 1985. That a contempt motion on counsel’s assurance that would serve claiming was filed the same inmates only eighteen twenty-two months and plans implemented had not been and irre ten-year was not informed of the minimum spective implementation, period plans prescribed by were of confinement parole 20-223 before an constitutionally from indeter- July, defective. sentence; (3) minate life advice coun- following hearing, a contempt the United right sel waived his a preliminary States District Court for Idaho determined hearing, missing important discovery; thus program that the sex offender treatment spent counsel a minimal amount of had adequate functioning. become consulting Hays. time The psychiatric court concluded that for judging any standard claim of expectation care under I.C. 20-223 was ineffective counsel whether counsel’s contempt satisfied. The motion and subse so proper conduct undermined the function quent motion amend were denied. Balla ing process of the adversarial that the trial Correction, v. Idaho State Board No. upon having produced cannot be relied (D.Idaho August 81-1165 order filed just Washington, result. Strickland v. 1986) (motion to amend denied December 466 U.S. 104 S.Ct. 80 L.Ed.2d 674 II, 1986). being Presently, appeal an is two-component There is a test used processed on the of sole issue whether the First, companion in with this standard. it psychiatric adequate. care is performance must that be shown counsel’s Hays’ We conclude that Second, contention is not was deficient. it must be shown The performance prejudiced moot. decision of the United States the deficient 687; the defendant’s case. Id. at being appealed. District Court Idaho is Maxfield State, (Ct. 108 Moreover, Idaho court, determining a state in Simons, App.1985); see also State v. statute, compliance with a state is not nec- (Ct.App.1987). essarily by bound a federal court’s inter- could, pretation. A state court for exam- assuming Hays’ point Even of com- first ple, require higher psychological level plaint performance, of shows deficient it is Hays already by prevailed evaluation and now moot. va- required treatment than cating charges his event, three a federal any court. In the state allegations physical which the lacked of court should of consider the outcome the contact He stands convicted of element. litigation federal will as it determine only charge one which not affected the presently meeting whether state is min- the contact issue. imum federal standards of Be- treatment. issue, cause bypassed the court below the questions the point second we remand the case for further considera- plea. his He asserts that voluntariness of light tion of the merits of possi the matters attorney his him of the misinformed confinement, discussed above. particularly ble duration of pleading guilty. matters and parole preliminary provisions time minimum the personal here follows decision His attor- 20-223. eligibility under guilty to pleading he took in exact course affidavit, part, controverts ney’s charges just in California similar criminal Hays was The affidavit shows claim. proceedings to the Idaho. prior correctly of the minimum confine- informed this to avoid further decided to do indeterminate sen- period under an ment Further, Hays on the victims. burdens he years, of than ten but tence less of his court-appointed psychologist told ten- by counsel of the not informed was charges if the willingness admit to the to pa- period for minimum confinement year left allegation penetration sexual of life eligibility under an indeterminate role clearly question This not raise out. does Thus, been a factual issue has sentence. assistance of counsel. of ineffective However, assuming ineffec- raised. even point fails to show ineffective final also counsel, do of such facts tive assistance clarify fails assistance of counsel. not, law, entitle as a matter what was deficient other or substantiate seeks. claiming merely than minimal amount State, 108 Brooks was spent time with him. (Ct.App.1985), P.2d we held that points not We that the above do conclude plea of a was not affected voluntariness performance show that counsel’s so under- a fif counsel stated that where defense just that a result proceedings mined re teen-year imposed, sentence would be produced. agree dis- was not We with the only two or quiring actual confinement allegation court that the of ineffective trict years, specifi three defendant was genuine failed to raise a materi- assistance cally judge that recommen informed Summary disposition al issue. favor binding not dations counsel were proper. state imposed. that a life sentence could said that the defendant in case had IV. SENTENCE DISPROPORTIONAL cognizable receiving expectancy” “no Hays argues that a life sentence for the sentence; fifteen-year consequently, crime of lewd and lascivious conduct attorney’s mistaken characterization disproportionate and unconstitutional. the effect of such a sentence did not affect supporting applica- his his memorandum Here, Hays’ plea. the voluntariness tion, great Hays admirably went to detail application pattern. frames a similar fact issue, attempting and research on this alleges attorney predicted He disproportionality demonstrate ten-year requiring actual confine However, persuaded we are not sentence. eighteen twenty-two ment of months. Hays’ argument. by However, Hays he his plea, when entered specifically by judge was informed 277, Helm, v. 463 U.S. Solem recommendations bind counsel were not 3001, (1983), S.Ct. 77 L.Ed.2d 637 the Unit ing and the judge impose could Supreme ed set forth three States Court sentence” consecutively “maximum on each determining a objective criteria for whether pending. Hays of the four counts has then unconstitutionally sentence is excessive. never been claimed have unaware reviewing require to: Those criteria a court imprison the “maximum sentence” life (1) gravity the offense and consider the Consequently, alleged ment. counsel’s er (2) penalty; compare harshness of the stating potential in ror effect of a ten- imposed the sentences on other criminals year did sentence not affect the voluntari jurisdiction; and com within the same Hays’ plea. ness of pare imposed for commission sentences jurisdictions. of the same crime in other point, Hays alleges In his third apply punish now these to the criteria preliminary hearing waived a on imposed Hays. ment on true, may advice of counsel. While that be the record reveals inde The first satisfied also had factor re- pendent, personal waiving all for sentence by applying reasons our standard Toohill, 565, in view State v. 103 Idaho Having fully 650 sentence. reviewed the (Ct.App.1982). P.2d 707 The having maximum record and considered the sentence punishment Hays Toohill, could have received is a review in criteria supra, State possibili determinate life sentence with no we determine that sentence was not ty parole. Hays received an grave indeter excessive for the offense he commit- minate For purposes life sentence. review ted. we treat an indeterminate life a sentence as The second criterion under Solem re confinement, ten-year period of absent a quires compare us to the sentence for lewd contrary indication in the record. State v. and lascivious conduct with sentences for Wilde, (Ct.App. similar or more serious offenses within this 1983). This represents computa the time jurisdiction. In applying this we criterion Hays’ parole

tion for eligibility. Parole guided by are the following deferential eligibility persuasive highly a fact for standard “Reviewing announced Solem. determining severity of a sentence. courts, course, grant should substantial Estelle, Rummel See 445 U.S. 100 deference to the legis broad authority that S.Ct. 63 L.Ed.2d 382 There possess latures in determining types fore, question is whether confinement punishments crimes, and limits of years for ten is excessive when viewed in well as to the discretion that trial courts light of the nature of the offense and the possess sentencing convicted criminals.” character of E.g., the offender. State Helm, Solem v. U.S. 103 S.Ct. Reinke, (Ct. at 3009. App.1982). Idaho, a life sentence is mandated for offense committed first-degree kidnapping, 18-4504; I.C. § deplorable involved gra acts self-sexual hijacking, and I.C. 18-7501. Life sen § young tification with a victim. innocent are tences authorized for robbery, I.C. family. The victim is a member of 18-6503; murder, first-degree I.C. 18- § § There is evidence that the victim has suf 4004; murder, second-degree I.C. deep fered emotional trauma. No 18-4004; poisoning kill, with intent § However, violence was involved. the inher 18-4014; 18-6104; rape, I.C. I.C. forc § § ently coercive nature of the offense indi 18-6608; penetration, ible sexual I.C. why grave cates it a is considered persist for other felonies committed a repugnant crime. violator, Further, ent I.C. 19-2514. character,

Concerning Hays’ sentencing his criminal statutory court must follow past guidelines imposing includes convictions California for a sentence. These statutory burglary guidelines and lewd conduct with minors. allow court its Additionally, Hays pled guilty impose here four discretion to indeterminate deter conduct, minate, consecutive, counts of lewd and concurrent or sen three of counts sentencing those tences. 19-2513. The reversed any aggravating because district court deter- court must consider also circumstances, jurisdictionally mined the information was mitigating ap and must Clearly, history objectives protecting ply penal defective. socie deterrence, rehabilitation, unlawful sexual contact with ty, minors. and retribu 19-2515, diagnosed pedophile has been as a tion. 19-2521. I.C. §§ no with likelihood rehabilitation. All of considering the for After offenses which points Hays’ capability these show for ma- Legislature sen- authorized life nipulating exploiting young children. tences, we conclude that an indeterminate particularly parole eligibility, for The district court was con- life with protecting society’s cerned lewd and lascivious with a minor is with children conduct per Hays. Hays’ apparent Legisla- from lack of re- not se unconstitutional. The morse, together with dim for of these of- a outlook his ture could conclude rehabilitation, punishment provided. persuaded further fenses warrants the the dis- Furthermore, criminals have impose trict court to the indeterminate life two other

745 argu- disposition proportionality for given ry life sentences on indeterminate been one committing comparable proper. to the ment was offenses Hays. State v. Van committed See 581, Newkirk, 110 Idaho 716 P.2d 1353 V. PLEA AGREEMENT minor); (lewd with (Ct.App.1986) conduct ground The final relief asserted 856, v. 110 Idaho 719 P.2d Gooding, State prod- guilty pleas were the Hays is that his (lewd mi (Ct.App.1986) conduct with 405 upon plea negotiations with the state uct of nor). sen Other criminals have received reneged. later record which the state for lewd conduct with minors where tences negotia- plea recites the substance period parole eligibility the time is com was to recommend that tions. The state Freeman, Hays’. parable to See State v. concurrent- Hays’ Idaho sentence served (Ct.App.1986) 714 110 Idaho ly sentence in California Califor- (consecutive, indeterminate terms of twen prison system. nia’s It was understood ty years); Rutherford, ten State v. contingent all recommenda- that this was (Ct.App.1985) had tion because the Board of Correction (determinate sentence); twenty-year State placement ultimate over and re- control Glandon, P.2d lease. concurrent, (two (Ct.App.1985) indeter If decides enter a defendant year sentences); twenty-five minate State plea guilty through reliance some Lawrence, 107 Idaho 693 P.2d 1069 promise representation by prosecu or (two concurrent, (Ct.App.1984) determinate tion, renege not state later either sentences). fifteen-year sum, Hays’ upon promise its or seek court intervention

treatment has been not different from that voluntary to relieve it from the terms of its many accorded to who criminals have com agreement. plea upon A defendant’s based mitted similar offenses. promise is which state cannot meet Finally, compare we im the sentences invalid; plea may be withdrawn at posed for commission of the same crime in defendant’s insistence. State Hernan jurisdictions. With his criminal histo dez, ry, Hays could have life received sentences Illinois, Here, two other states: clearly ILL.REV. the record shows 38, pars. 12-16, (1981); STAT. ch. 1005-8-1 prosecution made the recommendations Utah, UTAH ANN. promised. sentencing, judge CODE it At the trial 1987). (supp. 76-5-404.1 acknowledged acceptance prosecu several other § states, Hays expressed could have received sentences tion’s recommendation and to all involving periods present considerable of confine that the matter be left to the would Alaska, ment: ALASKA STAT. 11.41.- control of the Board of Correction. Since §§ 434, 12.55.125(i) (1987) (eight thirty promised, prosecution did all that it it years); Florida, 827.071, FLA.STAT. cannot be found there was a breach §§ 775.082, (1985) (fifteen thirty 775.084 plea negotiations. guilty plea Hays’ years); Georgia, GA.CODEANN. question. 16-6-4 valid. There no As factual (five Minnesota, law, twenty years); a matter of the state was entitled to (1986) (fifteen MINN.STAT. summary 609.343 disposition of this issue. Montana, years); and MONT.CODE ANN. (1987) (twenty 45-5-502 years). CONCLUSION appears Hays’

It sentence not application We conclude that excessively severe. Consequently, genuine we find no fact raised material issues of regarding jurisdiction, sentence is not unreasonable the district court’s counsel, excessive. He not been treated more disproportionality assistance of harshly than other juris- plea agree- offenders and breach jurisdictions. diction We Summary disposition conclude of these mat- ment. proportional sentence is proper. to the of- ters was determine fense he Accordingly, question concerning committed. ex- summa- factual exists adequacy psychiatric

istence and treat- Hays.

ment for We remand this issue to proceedings.

the district court for further

Accordingly, denying Hays’ the order

motion to amend or alter is af- part, part, vacated in

firmed and remand-

ed.

BURNETT, J., concurs.

WALTERS, C.J., fully concurs I, III, V, AND

parts IV but dissents opinion part

without II and to the proceedings, being

remand for further

convinced that the district court’s

dismissal should be affirmed in its

entirety. Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

STATE of DANSON,

Thomas H.

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16642. Appeals

Court of of Idaho.

Dec. 1987.

Case Details

Case Name: Hays v. State

Court Name: Idaho Court of Appeals

Date Published: Dec 10, 1987

Citation: 747 P.2d 758

Docket Number: 16478

Court Abbreviation: Idaho Ct. App.