Standlee v. StateStandlee v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Donaldson
Lead Opinion
In August of 1973, appellant Gay Dean Standlee pled guilty to the reduced charges of voluntary manslaughter and assault with intent to commit murder. He was subsequently sentenced to the custody of the Idaho State Board of Corrections for a period not to exceed ten years on the manslaughter charge and for a period not to exceed ten years on the assault charge. The terms were to run concurrently. An appeal of the sentence was taken to this Court in Supreme Court No. 11487 and is reported at 96 Idaho 165, 525 P.2d 360 (1974).
In February of 1974, a motion for post-conviction relief was filed in the Fifth Judicial District Court in Jerome County. The motion challenged the constitutionality of
This appeal is taken from the dismissal of the motion and refusal of the district court to declare
On appeal Standlee contends that the district court erred when it failed to find
The appellant’s first assignment of error contends that the enactment by the legislature of the statute at issue violates the provisions as to separation of powers found in Article II, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution. That Article provides that no branch of government may exercise power properly charged to another branch of government. The appellant’s position is that Article IV, Section 7 of the Idaho Constitution grants only the executive branch of government the power of determining parole and therefore appellant argues that since only the executive branch, i. e. the Board of Corrections, can grant parole, the legislative branch cannot limit the discretion of the Board as it claims to do with
The Idaho Constitution provides that the Board, or a majority thereof “shall have power to remit fines and forfeitures, and to grant commutations and pardons after conviction and judgment.” On the other hand, the legislature has the power to define crime and fix punishment subject to the constraints discussed in State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236, 486 P.2d 247 (1971). See also Malloroy v. State, 91 Idaho 914, 435 P.2d 254 (1967). So the issue is whether parole is a form of commutation and pardon or a part of punishment.
This is a case of first impression for this Court. Certain cases2 offered by appellant contain language that could be interpreted as holding parole to be synonymous with pardon and commutation. However, those cases dealt either with the issue of whether the Board could extend a sentence beyond that announced by the sentencing judge (it cannot) or with the issue as to whether the Board may exercise discretion in refusing to grant a timely request for parole (it can). That authority is not dispositive of the issue now before the Court.
Our analysis of both the historic development and the present usage of parole leads us to conclude that the limitations on parole established by the legislature *852do not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The Constitution speaks only of commutations and pardons. These differ from paroles. A pardon does away with both the punishment and the effects of a finding of guilt. A commutation diminishes the severity of a sentence, e. g. shortens the term of punishment. A parole does neither of these things. A parole merely allows the convicted party to serve part of his sentence under conditions other than those of the penitentiary. The party is not “pardoned” of his guilt, nor is a portion of his sentence “commuted.” He is still under the supervision of the authorities and subject to revocation of his parole should he violate the conditions thereof. Thus, we find that parole is within the legislative scope of establishing suitable punishment for the various crimes.
Although not pled or briefed either in the district court or on appeal, it could be argued that Art. X, Sec. 5 of the Idaho Constitution is also in conflict with
“§ 5. State prisons — Control over— The state legislature shall establish a nonpartisan board to be known as the state board of correction, and to consist of three members appointed by the governor, * * * This board shall have the control, direction and management of the penitentiaries of the state, their employees and properties, and of adult probation and parole, with such compensation, powers, and duties as may be prescribed by law.” (underscored portion denotes 1941 amendment.)
The legislature implemented this constitutional amendment by enacting
“Only when an irreconcilable’ conflict presents itself will the court seek recourse in the principles that subsequent provisions prevail over prior provisions or that specific provisions prevail over general provisions * * Engelking v. Investment Board, supra, at 221, 458 P.2d at 217.
The state constitution is not a grant but a limitation on legislative power so that the legislature may enact any law not expressly or inferentially prohibited by the state or federal constitutions. Idaho Power & Light Company v. Blomquist, 26 Idaho 222, 141 P. 1083 (1914); St. Joe Improvement Co. v. Laumeirster, 19 Idaho 66, 112 P. 683 (1910). We therefore interpret this constitutional provision, Art. X, Sec. 5, as placing the control, direction and management of the Adult Probation and Parole in the State Board of Correction. Further, that this section of the Constitution grants the legislature the authority to prescribe by law the compensation, powers and duties of the Department of Adult Probation and Parole; that the provision of
The appellant’s second assignment of error contends that the classification of crimes established by
The appellant’s third assignment of error argues that the statute at issue is unconstitutional because it violates the requirement of Article III, Section 16 of the Idaho Constitution that each statute be concerned with but one topic. The purpose of that provision is “to prohibit the practice of bringing together into one bill subjects diverse in their nature, and having no necessary connection * * * [and] to avoid improper influences which may result from an intermingling in one and the same bill such things as have no proper relation to each other.” State v. Banks, 37 Idaho 27, 32-33, 215 P. 468, 469 (1923).
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the district court is affirmed.
McFADDEN, SHEPARD, and BAKES, JJ., concur.Notes
. “
*851The board shall not accept an application for parole and shall not interview any prisoner for parole who1 was committed for any of the following crimes; any crime for which the prisoner received a life sentence, any crime of violence, to-wit: homicide in any degree, treason, rape where violence is an element of the crime, robbery of any kind, kidnaping, burglary when armed with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, or murder in the second degree, any crime of rape, incest, crime against nature, or committing a lewd act upon a child, or with an attempt or assault with intent to commit any of said crimes, or any prisoner serving a sentence as a habitual offender, until said prisoner has served either a period of five (5) years or one-third (%) of the original sentence, whichever is the least. The above limitation on parole eligibility shall affect only those prisoners who are sentenced on and after the first day of July, 1971.
* * *_»
. See Spanton v. Clapp, 78 Idaho 234, 299 P.2d 1103 (1956); State v. Evans, 73 Idaho 50, 245 P.2d 788 (1952); Storseth v. State, 72 Idaho 49, 236 P.2d 1004 (1951); In re Prout, 12 Idaho 494, 86 P. 275 (1906).
Concurrence Opinion
(specially concurring).
Article 2, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution provides that branches of government in this state shall be separate and shall not exercise any of the powers given to the other branches.
“§ 1. Departments of government.— The powers of the government of this state are divided into three distinct departments, the legislative, executive and judicial; and no person or collection of persons charged with the exercise of powers properly belonging to one of these departments shall exercise any powers properly belonging to either of the others, except as in this constitution expressly directed or permitted.”
This Court has in the past been vigilant in upholding the doctrine of separation of powers.
“This court always must be watchful, as it has been in the past, that no one of the three separate departments of the government encroach upon the powers properly belonging to another.” 1
Today’s decision, I believe, reflects a lack of concern for this important constitutional doctrine, and compels me to file this separate opinion.
*854It has long been recognized in this State: “. . . that the power to define crimes and prescribe penalties belongs to the legislative department of government; that the power to try offenders, and to enter judgments convicting and sentencing those found guilty, belongs to the judicial department; that the power and prerogative of granting pardons, paroles or commutations belong to the executive department.”2 [Emphasis added]
In reference to the power of the executive branch of government in the area of probation and parole, Article 10 Section 5 of the Idaho Constitution provides:
“§ 5. State prisons — Control over.— The state legislature shall establish a nonpartisan board to be known as the state board of correction, and to consist of three members appointed by the governor, one member for two years, one member for four years, and one member for six years. After the appointment of the first board the term of each member appointed shall be six years. This board shall have the control, direction and management of the penitentiaries of the state, their employees and properties, and of adult probation and parole, with such compensation, powers, and duties as may be prescribed by law.” [Emphasis added.]
The enactment of
“The board shall not accept an application for parole and shall not interview any prisoner for parole who was committed for any of the following crimes; any crime for which the prisoner received a life sentence, any crime of violence, to-wit: homicide in any degree, treason, rape where violence is an element of the crime, robbery of any kind, kidnaping, burglary when armed with a dangerous weapon, assault with intent to kill, or murder in the second degree, any crime of rape, incest, crime against nature, or committing a lewd act upon a child, or with an attempt or assault with intent to commit any of said crimes, or any prisoner serving a sentence as a habitual offender, until said prisoner has served either a period of five (5) years or one-third (1/3) of the original sentence, whichever is the least The above limitation on parole eligibility shall affect only those prisoners who are sentenced on and after the first day of July, 1971.”
This provision interferes with the authority and duty of an executive agency in an area which under the state constitution was left exclusively to the executive domain. I do not believe this encroachment should receive judicial sanction.
. State v. McCoy, 94 Idaho 236, 241, 486 P.2d 247, 252 (1971).
. Spanton v. Clapp, 78 Idaho 234, 237, 299 P.2d 1103, 1104 (1956).