State v. McCoy

236 Superior (1947); People P.2d 247

P.2d v. County, Contra 4 Cal.2d Costa Idaho, The Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE of disapproved P.2d 724 overruled v. grounds, Fields, People v. 42 Cal. Eugene McCOY, Judge L. Probate for Twin Rptr. People v. (1965); P.2d 369 County, Idaho, Falls State of De fendant-Respondent. Gilbert, P.2d Cal.2d procedure present followed No. 10783. complied there cause the statute and Supreme Court of Idaho. was no error. June assign appellant’s find

We also al trial court error

ment records part of the

lowing in evidence merit. hospital without the state originally offered records were

These appellant’s prosecution but excluded object cannot now He at trial. objection to allow some refusal trial court’s it when evidence records

the same they inadmis were already determined objection. Fur his the basis sible

thermore, indication there upon relied superintendent that the record during memory his to refresh records these Rather, appears testimony. his any of entirely testimony was Mr. Lake’s memory. prosecu- that the Appellant contends also during the instances action two

tor’s two instanc- his case. prejudiced prosecutor’s were refers which he es to dismissing the remarking reason in evidence charge offering and

assault specific hospital. No the state records of appears to events following these prejudice appellant points and in the record

us prejudice any real possibility of

none. is remote factors these

resulting from here. reversal find no cause

we as- appellant’s other have reviewed

We without find them

signments of error

merit. crime

Conviction robbery affirmed. McFADDEN, J., and

McQUADE, C. SHEPARD, con- JJ.,

DONALDSON

cur. in judgment

court enter accordance with appealed state has this statute. The of court and asserts decision the district validity the statute in issue and the of to enact it. Ernesto Medina On June driving adjudged guilty of while under the intoxicating liquor, influence an offense Judge McCoy committed on 1970. June County Twin Falls Probate fined Medina court costs $5.00 $175.00 thirty days sentenced him county jail. probate judge then sus- pended of the fine and the entire $125.00 jail placed proba- sentence and Medina on months, despite tion for six I.C. 49- § provided 1102(d) mandatory mini- upon ten day jail mum sentence a convic- tion for this offense. prosecuting attorney of Twin Falls

County petition submitted for writ of Anthony Park, Atty. Gen., July W. mandate to the district court Martin R. on Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., petition, In Boise, prosecuting 1970. his at- Rob- Galley, torney ert Atty., W. Falls, Pros. moved that the district Twin court direct plaintiff-appellant. probate court to sentence Medina to at days least county jail. ten An alter- May, May, Bennett Sudweeks, & Twin native writ of mandate was issued the fol- Falls, for defendant-respondent. day lowing in which the court district or- probate dered the court to SPEAR, either sentence Justice. according Medina to the statute or show appeal presents question one why cause the sentence should not be im- validity consideration: of I.C. § posed. 49-1102(d) by amended Legislature.1 The hearing July 28, statute as amended A will was held on 1970 and hereafter referred to as I.C. 49- issued from the court district § below, 1102(d). proceedings pro- August 7, quashing the alternative provisions previously bate court refused to effect writ of mandate issued. The this and the 49-1102(d) district district court held that I.C. § quashed an Alternative legislative Writ Mandate conflicted intent compelled which would probate have the courts should have the 1. shall be ty ished municipal such three serve son convicted under a violation of this section (6) Ck. “(d) Every person months or fine hundred dollars by imprisonment municipal least mandatory ^[1970] ten imprisonment. for not more than six (10) fine Idaho Session Laws who is convicted of this ($300) and this in the every judge not more than shall section shall in the coun- Every per- county pun- both out judge may time. On a second or ing viction he be served within a six every time not cretion in (5) years.” any right the date penitentiary court of the state twenty-four less said shall allow said than conviction matter, for not more than five exercise one (24) imprisoned jail (1) day (6) except consequent hours at each week Idaho with- sentence segments consist- period con- dis- n though accepted criminal cases found common law is

probation part state, subject I.C. of the law amendments I.C. 19-2601.2 49-1102(d) legislature. found to be con modification was also 4 ; II, ; Ill, 1 Art. and trary to Art. § § case Since this raises the issue of the V, of the the Constitution Art. 135 of § and power nature extent of vested further district of Idaho. The State judiciary inviolate, it, and reserved to be an in question held statute by II, Article 1 and Article 13 of the V authori fringement judicial power and constitution, initially we shall look ty- powers by possessed judiciary at com appealed, challenging these state has mon law. The Constitution of the State of In its ar- conclusions of the district court. specifically Idaho does not enumerate those gument state asserts that to this court the powers separate depart reserved to this au- legislature has the constitutional government. ment of the Our research thority to what sentence determine many has disclosed decisions from other such au- be and the various crimes shall jurisdictions questions presenting in cases prescribe thority power includes the similar this which discussed extent mandatory further The state sentences. power of judiciary suspend inherent judiciary has no contends that the sentence common law. The courts have sentence; while the power suspend and ways, many decided issue both of them suspend power had have courts interpreting authority differently. the same law, law can the common tence at common States, parte In Ex United 242 U.S. power ab- and this amended Supreme S.Ct. 61 L.Ed. rogated. held Court that United States District of, England has been law The common suspended improperly had Court history, early, since recognized in this state purported criminal case reason recognized in the tacitly and this was . power no there was rel. constitution. ex adoption of State . Construing judiciary sentence Co., v. Rich Idaho Power English common authorities two also statutes P.2d 596. Our law, concluded no such the Court efficacy of specifically declare passage relied The first existed there. statute, I.C. 73-1166. common law. of Fleas upon by is from Hale’s the Court furthermore, indisputable that al- it leaves 2. 3. ers judicial; 428. partments, persons properly belonging except as in this constitution directed departments Ch. “§ properly 1.. powers are divided into charged or Departments 3§ permitted.” shall belonging ^[1970] legislative, with the exercise person £o either exercise Idaho Session government of this three to one or government executive collection any distinct expressly of these others, Laws pow de . — 5. ly pertains below the ment ture shall this Constitution. same ercise peals, courts. —The sary, “§ any 13. Power the methods of of their deprive provide Supreme regulate government; or legislature done it powers of jurisdiction as a without legislature Court, proceeding proper coordinate shall all so system conflict which when neces- department far the courts respecting in the ex- have no legisla- depart- as the right- ap- pro- common special in force. —The 6. law laws 19. Local “§ “Common England, is not far pass 'so law repugnant lo- shall not hibited. —The with, to, following special or inconsistent cal or laws in States, the United eases, say: or laws constitution is to enumerated provided com- these cases not in' all laws, in all decreasing fees, increasing of decision “Creating, rule piled or public , state.” percentages,, this courts or of-. allowances during of- the term for which said ficers appointed.” are elected ficers Crown, p. 412, Vol. ch. rather usage, common than of right.” states: strict “Reprieves stays In its opinion, the seems to fo- have kinds, are of three execution viz: qualification cused on Blackstone’s * * * “I. Ex mandato regis. reprieve only temporary and concluded English that therefore the courts “II. Ex judicis. arbitrio Sometimes temporarily stay execution of judge reprieves judgment, before judgment. Hale makes no such he where is not satisfied with the ver qualification in dict, his work and we believe uncertain, or the evidence or the is. contrary subject his comments are insufficient, indictment or doubtful interpretation, supporting thus those courts clergy; whether within and sometimes judiciary possess- which have held that judgment, after felony, if it be a small power permanently suspend es the to sen- clergy, tho out of or in order to a par tence. transportation. Crompt. or don Just. 22b, arbitrary reprieves may these Following interpretation the above of granted by justices or be taken off Hale, Appeals the Court of State gaol-delivery, their altho sessions be New York had concluded its courts adjourned finished, by or and this reason suspend sentence in criminal Dyer, 205a, usage. of common 2 73 People Forsyth cases. rel. ex v. Court Eng. Reprint, 452. Sessions, 36 N.E. 386 N.Y. legis, which is in “III. Ex necessitate Hale, Quoting the author is pregnancy, woman case of where stated: felony treason.” convict of or “ * * * can, think, There I be no quote in Blackstone’s second is found suspend doubt that the sentence Law, Bk. ch. 31: Commentaries after conviction to all such courts at practice common law. The had ways remaining “The origin hardships its resulting in the avoiding execution peculiar procedure, rules of criminal by pardon; reprieve whereof are or when the court had only, latter temporary is the former trial, new upon either the same or addi- permanent. evidence, tional verdict was not reprendre, reprieve “I. A (from upon by any higher reviewable the facts withdrawing take is the of a back) power, exercised, court. The as thus is whereby time; for an language by tence interval described in this Lord Hale: suspended. execution is This judge reprieves ‘Sometimes the before n be, as, judge judgment, first ex where the arbitrio he where is satisfied verdict, verdict, satisfied or the is with with the or evidence is un- certain, insufficient, suspicious, or the indictment evidence or the indictment is insufficient, also, he is doubtful whether or doubtful clergy; or whether within clergy; offense be or within some- when extenuating favorable or circum- felony, appear, youths if it be a small fa- stances times or and when are con- appear vourable circumstances victed of their first offense. And these character, give arbitrary reprieves may order granted or criminal’s apply by justices gaol for either taken off room to the Crown deliv- pardon. ery, adjourned although sessions absolute conditional their this, arbitrary finished; reprieves grant- These reason of com- Hale, usage.’ mon justices gaol p. ed or taken P.C. c. off delivery, although of common belonged, right, their session be fin- ished, expired; every and their tribunal invested commission case. 1 er cases and this more rule in a criminal than bare award execution Law, subject Ed.) change 758.” (1st Cr. substantive law Chit. Rather, the legislature. it is the na- courts have Other decisions which right ture of an inherent

reached a similar result are: Gehrmann v. department separation and one ; Osborne, N.J.Eq. (1912) 82 A. 424 powers concept system in our gov- State, v. 58 Ohio St. 51 N.E. Weber places beyond ernment above and rule Goodrich, People (1898); v. 149 N.Y. mandatory imposed by legislative action State, Spencer (Sup.1914). S. v. fiat. (1911) 125 Tenn. S.W. 597 court, Hale, relying on that the determined tells Additionally, sense us comon right existed at laws, in- system of so. this must be Our common but concluded that such a civilization, has deed, under- hopefully practice had never been followed in that en- toward persevering evolution gone a state. just a than A more lightenment. fact an executioner of finder of these authori conclude from We Ideally, also he is rule law. inexorable judiciary possessed the ties that the It the law. keeper the of the conscience How suspend sentence. common law given the courts are reason that is for this not, alone, nullify standing ever, this does sentencing, in the most in even discretion it consideration the statute under power to cases, felony and the serious al can almost that the common law clear reha- recognize that grant probation. We leg by the ways be overturned modified offenders, bilitation, particularly of first common If the islature. 73-116. I.C. § usually consideration the initial should be of this state recognized as the law law was sanction. the imposition the in adopted, at the time the constitution was accomplished can be better this Whether Co., su v. Idaho Power State ex Rich rel. penal system or some through the powers that pra, conclude the we must also fully means, by one achieved it can best departments, reserved the several particularly con- facts all the advised of enumerated, in the not must be defined case and defendant in each cerning the common law. Were we de context of the these consid- body far removed from a liberating upon a matter of substantive in Doubtless, legislation the erations. law, leg the there doubt that would no highways safety on óur terest of the change in islature has valid effected a end legitimate purpose. This salutory a common this a consider law. met, to the other addition cannot be in greater ation of much dimension. The sought within goals which must be judiciary provides constitution that the is a purview of the by removing from the department separate and others each merits of court consideration of “ * * * -legislature that shall have pro- statute This offense offender. deprive judicial depart case of the exception in the for no vides any power jurisdiction ment of nor infirm, emergency, driving in an one rightly pertains to it as a coordinate de only abro- pregnant It woman. ” * * * partment government suspend the court to gates the But, this explicitly does not document de- good the circumstances sentence when powers lineate what those shall be. For action; might justify such conscience beyond this reason go we must consti- impose a authority to also removes tution itself to discover what were lighter sentence. peculiarly by judiciary. held very cir- past in the been court has light, In this perceive we authority possessed autonomy envi- cumspect protecting by the neces- courts to sentence sarily judiciary our consti- includes within sioned for Kaufman, whole or any part prop- Application of that tution. day (1949), consisting twenty-four (24) Idaho 206 P.2d 528 the court hours ” * * * had granted before it statute which ad- at each (emphasis time. add- any per- mission to ed) bar graduated son who had been Uni- null, is unconstitutional and therefore void

versity (Ch. of Idaho School Law § and unenforceable. purporting to spite ^[1949] showing Idaho control Session Laws history Idaho State 126). legislation Bar, De- alternative writ of mandate affirmed. Judgment of the district court quashing this court overturned an in- McQUADE, J., DONALDSON, C. valid judicial authority. interference J., concur. case, this, In that as in there no clear McFADDEN, (dissenting). Justice authority stated in the constitu- majority opinion tion concludes that persuaded by itself. The court was I.C. 49-1102(d), by S.L.1970, the fact amended control administration of Ch. 264, 2, is organized being unconstitutional as always leg- recog- Bar been islative peculiar nized encroachment judici- pow- as a function ary. judiciary. ers of the It is from this con- clusion that I dissent. In R.E.W. Const. Co. v. District Court kept defining mind Dist., Third Jud. limits of depart- of the three P.2d this court confirmed the Const, government, ments of art. inherent authority vested judiciary great importance is one and delica- pass rules of procedure. This decision cy, and this special court must exercise was reached spite provision “ caution in * this * area. In Leonardson v. * V, Article stating but the Moon, 796, 92 Idaho P.2d 542 (1969) legislature provide shall a proper system of in discussing constitutionality leg- of a appeals, regulate by law, when neces- enactment, islative this court stated: sary, the methods of proceeding in the ex- conclusion, ercise of powers their are arriving at we all the “In this courts be- ” * * * Supreme low the princi- of certain fundamental reminded deter- (1) In ples constitutional law: always watchful, This court must be legisla- constitutionality of a mining the past, has it been in the that no one enactment, principles fundamental tive separate departments three govern- rigidly kept in mind must be ever upon ment encroach properly presumed valid Statutes are observed. belonging to another. Thus we reach the as to constitu- reasonable doubts and all decision in this both case as a matter of tionality be in favor must resolved construction of the constitution of this suscepti- validity. (2) statute When state and to a more applica- effect rational constructions, one of which ble two Therefore, tion of law and policy. that other render it invalid would portion of 49-1102(d) providing: I.C. § valid, the construction render it would * * * “(d) Every person adopt- convicted must which sustains under this section shall serve at least ten The burden of by the courts. (3) ed (10) county municipal jail unconstitutionality a statute showing and this mandatory sentence shall be in- upon party asserts it and who every judge every clearly court of the state It validity (4) shown. must be of Idaho without right duty uphold to exercise is the courts judicial matter, except constitutionality discretion said legislative enactments may that allow said by can reasonable con- when that be done tence to (6) be served within a six week (5) the federal consti- struction. Unlike period from the date of tution, conviction is a limita- the state constitution segments times (1) tion, not less than one power. look grant, not We agreed

the state not to determine constitution decision government’s con- do, may de- legislature what the tentions. termine what it not do. an act of If opinion That history discussed the by legislature not forbidden common law courts in area and con- constitution, state federal it must be cluded, reciting after from Hale’s Pleas of valid, held at [citations.]” Crown, p. Vol. Ch. and from 451 P.2d at 552. Blackstone, 394-395, pp. Ch. that question The statute in is the result of a not “While be doubted under legisla public policy decision state the common as thus that law stated body recognized ture. That has that possessed right courts and asserted the operation by highways of vehicles to exert in the en- discretion in persons who are under the influence of temporarily forcement of law to sus- toxicating liquor constitutes menace pend imposition either of sentence or highways users to them imposed its execution when to the end attempt problem In an meet this selves. procured, pardon might day ten considered might respects violation of law in other detex be of sufficient would prevented, perceive are we unable hazard on the rent effect reduce this any groxxnd sustaining proposi- highways. that, pos- tion at common the courts hand, ques- Turning to at right the issue is here sessed or claimed the tion an upon.” of whether or courts have insisted at U.S. 37 S.Ct. herent sentences at L.Ed. widely divergent has received answers persuaded majority’s I am deci- appellate courts.- great weight placing a distinction such that have concluded sions of those courts Hale between and Blackstone. my power, there is such principle analysis opinions in judicial fully issue failed to consider the that one looks to earlier cases see what authority ex- and have tended to assume the key issues were resolved the decisions. isted, deferred or have without discussion apparent, reading What a legislature. wishes passages point by and Black- brief on Hale insight gaining stone as well some analysis starting point an The Law,” Holdsworth, English History “A have general proposition courts do not that with early is that common law courts dealt authority sentences is system justice which of criminal States, parte U. the case of Ex United harsh, un- unresponsive, standards was per (1916, 61 L.Ed. 129 S. S.Ct. to stu- wieldy. known The abuses well controlling by White, J.), as not C. viewed .are dents Because law. majority opinion today. In that case system grained we know abuses of the judge suspended federal trial had those judges more humanitarian prison execution of a sentence over early conjured fictions days up various objection prosecution. shortest The rigid structure alleviate otherwise applicable stat- prescribed appear from the criminal does law. ute criminal defendant convicted Ex or in any cited authorities above years. government applied The was five parte present- issue United States that the directed to a writ of mandamus early squarely by those ed here was faced or- judge, requiring him to vacate justices. apparent becomes What instead, suspending der the sentence and up grew practice suspending sentences impose with the a sentence which accorded attained tolerated never and was stat- punishment forth in the minimum set subject quasi-constitutional in a unanimous status Supreme ute. The Thus, question. my that the best view This court viewed the events at- said about the common tempt hang can be law "to the sentence six months’" question imprisonment was unresolved. over the head of the defend- ant to be executed as the at such time parte Supreme In Ex United States judge might require.” court or Court examined the relevant court 113 P. at uncertainty 730-731. The majority decisions. The of states which of the sentence was viewed as abusive. question decided the the exist denied court’s decision Peterson was power. ence of the Those cases to the that the defendant be released from custo- were, contrary Supreme Court’s dy any and be free from further confine- view, by unjustified weakened reliance on ment. In effect the invalidated the merely erroneous or decisions attempt by impose the district judge recognizing practice. established The suspended kind of sentence. To under- Court, Supreme relying United States on import stand the prob- this result to our Peterson, decision, the Idaho Ida re go lem here one must behind the Peterson ho put P. 729 this state opinion. penalty provided by the stat- majority camp. majority opinion ute under which defendant convicted has not discussed this or other Idaho deci provided: sions which I turn. now punishment "The for misdemeanors In re Peterson involved a con- hereunder and for offenses under the plea. guilty viction on a The trial Act, several provisions of this where not sentenced defendant to six months specifically for, provided otherwise shall plus a fine and costs. if the be a twenty-five fine of not less than fine paid were costs the six months dollars nor more than five hundred dol- suspended confinement was until further lars, [emphasis imprisonment mine] day same order. On same county days not less than ten pleaded guilty defendant similar nor months, more than six [emphasis charge and received a similar sentence. by both such imprison- fine and mine] day paid defendant the next both 1909, 18, ment.” p. S.L. 30.§ fines and walked out free man. The result of the case was that defend- Somehow commitments issued to were ant paid the fines. The trial court’s charges, local sheriff both each suspension as far as of the sen- copies however, judgments; tence was criticized as follows: judgments those failed to contain mention suspended “If said sentences were suspension of the sentences. The conditions, certain and the law autho- sheriff several later took defendant them, suspend rized the district court to custody into ha- defendant initiated a charged in case the defendant was corpus proceeding. beas The dis- violating suspension, the conditions of cussed two cases which declared justice require he be common would sentencing the trial courts abused their given hearing, not done a which was powers by suspend- a making revocation of But that makes no case. difference purely ed a sentence matter of unbridled case, in this no authori- court had prosecutor. In discretion of or (Emphasis ty suspend the sentence.” no de- case the court said conduct on mine.) at P. at 731. 19 Idaho part alleged fendant’s was which would words, suspension. contravene condition of No a In other this court held that hearing jail In- suspended imposed was held. revocation sentence deed, specified in there no conditions all in The statute were court below was vain. both, not a jail sentence defendant was a or which authorized fine or Thus, suspended jail abide. the de- term. when ry authority must have pay- of the court after this court reasoned out fendant walked absolutely general free from had no inherent authori- he courts ing the fine was ty suspend the if the with his sentence. sentence result further involvement said, if is to make quoted, that even case sense. This court prescribed suspension were conditions 1915, perhaps In as a reaction to the Pe- hearing held to deter- if a were and even decision, terson amended I. broken, it were would mine if a condition R.C. the court limited 7991 to § did au- naught the statute not since be suspend sentences for defendants in the first suspended sentence thorize a age progen- under of 25. This was the place. present itor I.C. Title Ch. 26. S.L.1915, 104, p. says no Ch. quotation there was The amendment The above purpose reading: the statement of court for the opinion that appears from the tence. amend the Revised “To section 7991 of December rendered on sentence was Codes of the Idaho and State of applicable statutory At that date the to the Grant District Court the Power Code, II, provision Revised Vol. was Idaho Suspend or Judgment in Withhold Crim- read: which put a inal Cases and Person Convicted alleged ap- or “If cause is no sufficient of a Criminal Probation Offense on pears why judgment should to the court Charge Probation Other thereupon pronounced, it must mine.) Proper (Emphasis Person” rendered.” Subsequent support my cases the same as This section reads Peterson decision. re view Jen- the Territorial of 1887. Statutes (1928), nings, 46 Idaho 267 P. 227 penal An of Idaho’s code examination whereby sentence sentence volved applicable to the time of Peterson reveals suspended paroled was and the defendant provision pertaining suspension of no county condition sheriff de- pro- 6312 and 6313 sentences. Sections pay paid fendant The fine was fine. general punishment standards vided promised (defendant time signed misdemeanors, mention felonies and promissory jailed. and defendant was note) being suspensions. code made presented issue was whether the which men- provision pertinent was lawfully sentence could be carried out even judgment for arrest tions motions though impris- the calendar the term of new trial: specified onment in the judgment had ex- plea guilty, or aft- “After a or verdict pired. first ruled that as in the on a against the defendant er a verdict case, suspension Peterson acquittal, plea a former conviction authority, surplusage, was without not arrested or a if new disregarded. opin- would be appoint a granted, the court must Ensign, ion cited State v. which, pronouncing judgment, time for P. 230 modified somewhat felony, must be at least two in cases of Peterson, explained. as will be verdict, if court intend after not, long; so but if in to remain session jail suspended term was In Peterson the can a time as reason- then at as remote there effect disregarded; the trial court in Code, ably allowed.” Revised Idaho prisoner where the went jurisdiction lost Vol. II suspended sentence and there the free after phase was ineffective. But jail term correct when at 19 opinion was thus The required by Jennings the defendant was 438, 113 it stated P. “[w]e improperly granted the court to serve authority in statutes for know of no result A similar suspended in said sentence. the ones entered judgments such Ensign in the no is case. there statuto- found And because cases.” then, distilled, “Since from these the decisions in can the Peterson What judgment Ensign suspension the of cases relate to is that terms cases entered, despite attempt already they an of a sentence literally enforced are will be strictly point ques- suspend part judgment. precise of The to on wit, presented, than the result in Peterson tion here rule is harsher to indefinitely time. any pronouncement where defendant avoided withhold the course, note, judgment point plea guilty. crucial is that of on a How- ever, indirectly idea absent a this court reaffirmed the those decisions sustain authority specific statutory grant proposition possess that the courts power, for, could not such court like the indefi- nitely suspend sentence.1 of judg- execution ment, indefinitely withhold There is another decision this court pronouncement judgment noth- up which I believe will sum the cases ing more or less per- than closely Grove, point. on re petually prevent punishment, which the youthful P. 519 involved possess.” courts do not 43 Idaho at guilty adjudged offender who 1923 was 254 P. at 520. pronouncement but sentence was with- Tield Two paragraphs and the defendant released his later in opin- on own the Grove ion, recognizance. years Over three later he Chief Lee refers the reader to Justice again parte ran States, afoul of the case but instead of of Ex supra, United being prison tried supports was sentenced to which of course the conclusion of original judgment. quotation. serve under the the above De- could It not have es- caped fendant Grove contended his habeas cor- court’s attention that the Su- pus preme petition that the Court relied consti- on the Peterson deci- supra, a withholding judgment sion, tuted to bolster its decision in Ex period, parte definite and that the trial court was United States and fact that it is jurisdiction impose judg- without cited as for the Groves decision years my ment three agreed position convinces hence. court me here is correct. defendant, reasoning the 1923 present I am convinced this situation is parole sentence did not comply with the basically case, the same as the Jennings su required statute which the sentence to pra. Here the has manifested clearly specify duration and conditions.2 impose its intent to a firm sentence and to also voided leave prison fewer sentencing alternatives to the by referring magistrate. tence holdings (1970 1102(d), of the I.C. § 49 - says Ensign decisions, supra. Supp.), Peterson and I “this sentence shall be manda tory every every believe words E. Chief Wm. Justice Lee any bear on this case: right State Idaho without to exer- ’* * * p. prescribe. 244, supra, 1. In S.L.1915 Oh. time as it A. suspension power initially applied portion new only reference to that set order years age not, forth shows that the court defendants under did January prescribe any and then crimes. certain terms withholding judgment, time unconditionally defend- 2. 43Idaho at 254 P. at 519: “Sub released the custody indefinitely sequent ant with- decision Peterson case, Legislature pronouncement judgment. enacted what held parole generally parole undoubtedly requires referred to as the statute (C providing, which, .S., 9047), that which, terms on and time for secs. among things, that on a conviction is withheld be made a offenses, grand part writing. ap- lar of certain order ‘ * * * ceny parent one, that, foregoing order, the court * * * discretion, attempt comply in its judgment withhold court made no with parole such on such terms and for statute.” (1970 (1970 Supp.), in said 19-2511 matter.” cise discretion 19-2601 Supp.), (1970 Supp.), refers to 19-2604 barred I.C. 19- and 16-1814 The discretion § Supp.). These general (1969 square (1970 Supp.), which views with trial court with the view of a substantial number grant of jurisdictions. defend- Annot. sentencing criminal See 1402. reference to A.L.R. ants. Today the courts have a full arsenal of my adequately, prevent tools to majority the miscarriage has not crimi- justice. nal the constitu- Aside opinion, grips come to the ameliorative I, already sentencing power tional here Idaho. listed3 framework courts separation grant have the (I.C. adhere to the course new § 19-2406), arrest concept present (I.C. Idaho’s consti- which 19- § courts, 2408), legislature arrest the judgment or tution. (I.C. 19-2409). consti- court’s own motion De- executive are creatures § it first appel- before fendants also seek relief in the tution we must consult primeval seq.). late courts blazing through (I.C. trail forest 19-2801 et These procedures early were not natural laws. known com- course, mon law. Of as at common provision principal constitutional governor and Commission for Pardons applies art. here is negate can Paroles convictions which grants power in state pardoning do not comport justice with notions of My concept of department. the executive fairness. ap- separation powers doctrine as foregoing reasons, constitution For re- plies here is this state’s I would specifically delegated to executive verse has the decision district court and relief hold part of the be constitutional. acts otherwise punishment SHEPARD, J., concurs. legislature. v. prescribed See State supra. Ensign, appellate are a number of

There granting statutes which have held

decisions impo-

the courts punishment unconstitutional to be

sition pardoning the exclusive

as violative of the executive. Mont- possessed 486 P.2d 257 Alabama, gomery 231 Ala. v. So. Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE of v. interpretation of consti- Idaho’s Such VILLARREAL, Trini- Larrea aka Trinidad is too Rather the execu- tution restrictive. Trejo, dad Juan Defend- legislature the power and the share tive ant-Respondent. punishment determine for criminal behav- No. 10571. legislature duty has the to define ior. crimes, Speer, re 23 P.2d Supreme Court of Idaho. appro- prescribe well as to June 1971. theory prac- priate punishment. This is in

tice in this state as manifested a statu- granting latitude in most

tory scheme wide 18- judge. to the trial See I.C.

cases §§ anticipated appears Therefore, block of classes. person day jail allow convicted under could be ex cessively A his time on week- some situations. 49-1102 serve harsh in job ends a student miss man could lose his off.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. McCoy

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Jun 25, 1971

Citation: 486 P.2d 247

Docket Number: 10783

Court Abbreviation: Idaho