State v. Odiaga

23 Citing cases

  1. Odiaga v. State

    950 P.2d 1254 (Idaho 1997)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding defendant's guilty plea was constitutionally valid where his claims amounted to "`bald and unsupported allegation . . ., unsubstantiated by any fact'"

    I.THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS In State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 871 P.2d 801, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 952, 115 S.Ct. 369, 130 L.Ed.2d 321, and cert. denied, 513 U.S. 955, 115 S.Ct. 377, 130 L.Ed.2d 327 (1994) ( Odiaga I), the Court overturned Odiaga's conviction and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. Id. at 392, 871 P.2d at 809.

  2. Estrada v. State

    143 Idaho 558 (Idaho 2007)   Cited 98 times
    Holding that a defendant has a right to the advice of counsel regarding the defendant's participation in a psychosexual evaluation

    Both Estrada and the State have limited their analysis of ineffective assistance of counsel to the federal framework; this Court's analysis will be similarly restricted. See State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 387, 871 P.2d 801, 804 (1994). The United States Supreme Court established the standard for a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in Strickland v. Washington, supra.

  3. State v. Fisher

    162 Idaho 465 (Idaho 2017)   Cited 3 times

    Defendant admits that we have on numerous occasions rejected claims that the abolition of the insanity defense violated the Federal Constitution. State v. Delling , 152 Idaho 122, 267 P.3d 709 (2011) ; State v. Moore , 126 Idaho 208, 880 P.2d 238 (1994) ; State v. Odiaga , 125 Idaho 384, 871 P.2d 801 (1994) ; State v. Gomez , 126 Idaho 83, 878 P.2d 782 (1994) ; State v. Winn , 121 Idaho 850, 828 P.2d 879 (1992) ; State v. Card , 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081 (1991) ; State v. Searcy , 118 Idaho 632, 798 P.2d 914 (1990). The most recent decision on the issue from the United States Supreme Court is Clark v. Arizona , 548 U.S. 735, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 165 L.Ed.2d 842 (2006), which this Court considered in Delling . "Having previously decided this question, and being presented with no new basis upon which to consider the issue, we are guided by the principle of stare decisis to adhere to the law as expressed in our earlier opinions."

  4. State v. Delling

    152 Idaho 122 (Idaho 2012)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that trial courts must adequately consider a defendant's mental condition at sentencing if it is a factor

    The Court has declined to grant a writ of certiorari for any Idaho case on this matter. See Stoddard v. Idaho, 546 U.S. 828, 126 S.Ct. 40, 163 L.Ed.2d 75 (2005), and denied his petition for rehearing, see 546 U.S. 1135, 126 S.Ct. 1127, 163 L.Ed.2d 943 (2006); See also State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081, cert. denied 506 U.S. 915, 113 S.Ct. 321, 121 L.Ed.2d 241 (1992); State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 871 P.2d 801 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 952, 115 S.Ct. 369, 130 L.Ed.2d 321 (1994); and cert. denied, 513 U.S. 955, 115 S.Ct. 377, 130 L.Ed.2d 327 (1994). While this in itself is not dispositive of anything, it reinforces the language found in other U.S. Supreme Court opinions that these types of decisions are left to the states.

  5. State v. Delling

    Docket No. 36920/36921 (Idaho Dec. 1, 2011)

    The Court has declined to grant a writ of certiorari for any Idaho case on this matter. See Stoddard v. Idaho, 546 U.S. 828 (2005), and denied his petition for rehearing, see 546 U.S. 1135 (2006); See also State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 825 P.2d 1081, cert. denied 506 U.S. 915 (1992); State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 871 P.2d 801 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 952, (1994); and cert. denied, 513 U.S. 955 (1994). While this in itself is not dispositive of anything, it reinforces the language found in other U.S. Supreme Court opinions that these types of decisions are left to the states.

  6. State v. Payne

    146 Idaho 548 (Idaho 2008)   Cited 220 times
    Holding the number of letters from family and friends attached to the PSI were "excessive" and that the full day of victim impact testimony contained many strongly worded "opinions about [defendant], his appropriate punishment and calls to religious authority as the basis for punishment" which rendered them admitted in error

    However, although we vacate Payne's sentence and order a new sentencing trial, we "shall pass upon and determine all questions of law involved in the case presented upon such appeal, and necessary to the final determination of the case." State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 388, 871 P.2d 801, 805 (1994); see also I.C. § 1-205. We will address each of the issues Payne presents on appeal to provide guidance on remand.

  7. State v. Moore

    126 Idaho 208 (Idaho 1994)   Cited 12 times

    This Court has repeatedly confirmed the constitutional validity of I.C. § 18-207, which eliminated mental condition as a defense in criminal proceedings. State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 388, 871 P.2d 801, 805 (1994); State v. Winn, 121 Idaho 850, 854, 828 P.2d 879, 883 (1992); State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 429, 825 P.2d 1081, 1085, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 321, 121 L.Ed.2d 241 (1992); State v. Searcy, 118 Idaho 632, 637, 798 P.2d 914, 919 (1990). Moore simply asserts that this Court should overrule its prior decisions on this issue, an invitation this Court has previously declined.

  8. State v. Gomez

    126 Idaho 83 (Idaho 1994)   Cited 27 times
    In State v. Gomez, 126 Idaho 83, 878 P.2d 782 (1994), the Court upheld the district court's denial of a motion for new trial sought upon grounds of alleged ineffective assistance of counsel because that ground was not included in the statute.

    The validity of I.C. § 18-207 has been established in Idaho case law. State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 871 P.2d 801 (1994) (citing State v. Winn, 121 Idaho 850, 854, 828 P.2d 879, 883 (1992)); State v. Card, 121 Idaho 425, 429, 825 P.2d 1081, 1085, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 321, 121 L.Ed.2d 241 (1992); State v. Searcy, 118 Idaho 632, 637, 798 P.2d 914, 919 (1990). Gomez presents no new basis upon which to consider the constitutionality of I.C. § 18-207 but argues that the Court should reconsider its prior rulings on the subject.

  9. State v. Santistevan

    143 Idaho 527 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the vast majority of federal and state appellate courts are in agreement on this issue

    In such cases the court may deny the party refusing to cooperate the right to present evidence in support of a mental status claim unless the interest of justice requires otherwise and shall instruct the jury that it may consider the party's lack of cooperation for its effect on the credibility of the party's mental status claim. Santistevan relies upon a single decision, State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384, 871 P.2d 801 (1994), in support of his proposition that the compelled examination violated his privilege against self-incrimination. In Odiaga, in response to the defendant's indication that he intended to present evidence of his mental illness, the State moved to compel a psychiatric evaluation, and the district court granted the motion.

  10. U.S. v. Brandon

    158 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 55 times
    Holding strict scrutiny applies because the defendant's right to be free from involuntary medication is a fundamental right

    See Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 154. In State v. Odiaga, 125 Idaho 384 (1994), the Idaho Supreme Court relied on Riggins in adopting a standard that more closely resembles strict scrutiny. The court stated as follows: