State v. ReeseState v. Reese
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Scoggin
Roger Reese, the defendant below, was convicted upon a plea of guilty to the crime of lewd and lascivious conduct with a child under the age of sixteen. On June 4, 1975, he was sentenced to serve an indeterminate term not to exceed fifteen years at a site to be determined by the State Board of Corrections. On June 6, 1975, the trial court entered a supplemental order which required that Reese be segregated from the general prison population and be held in the mental medical facility at the Idaho State Correctional Institution; it further required that the trial court be advised prior to Reese’s transfer from that facility.
Reese appeals from the fifteen year sentencing as unduly harsh, while the State brings its appeal from the subsequent order that required Reese to be placed in the mental medical facility. The appeals are consolidated here for our review. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
It is well settled in Idaho that the pronouncement of sentence to be imposed lies within the sound discretion of the trial court, and that a sentence fixed within the limits prescribed by statute will not ordinarily be considered an abuse of discretion.
State v. Mooneyham,
96 Idaho 145, 525 P.2d 340 (1974);
State v. Trowbridge,
95 Idaho 640, 516 P.2d 362 (1973);
State v. Ogata,
95 Idaho 309, 508 P.2d 141 (1973);
State
v.
Dunn,
91 Idaho 870, 434 P.2d 88 (1967);
King
v. State, 91 Idaho 97, 416 P.2d 44 (1966);
State v. Gish,
89 Idaho 334, 404 P.2d 595 (1965).
Defendant’s presentence report reveals a substantial record of prior criminal activity. His history of criminal and antisocial behavior ranges from such crimes as assault to sodomy to grand larceny. The conclusion of the trial judge that defendant Reese is “potentially dangerous particularly to young people” stands well supported in the record.
We affirm the defendant’s sentence of an indeterminate term not to exceed fifteen years. The subsequent order of the court requiring Reese to be placed in the mental medical facility, however, we must reverse.
The supervision and maintenance of prisons in the State of Idaho is a function of the executive branch of the government; the State Board of Correction is the body which has been expressly granted the control, direction and management of the state penitentiary.
Thus the order of the trial court of June 6, 1975, which required the defendant’s placement in the medical facility, exceeded that court’s authority. Certainly, the court’s recommendations as to the placement of a prisoner for treatment are entitled to great weight; the legislature, how
ever,
The order requiring the defendant be held in the Idaho security medical facility is reversed.
The sentence appealed from is affirmed and the supplemental order reversed.
McFADDEN, C. J., DONALDSON, BISTLINE, JJ., and DUNLAP, District Judge (Ret.), concur.