State v. Smith

11 Citing cases

  1. People v. Senior

    33 Cal.App.4th 531 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 203 times
    Holding that a claim of error can be waived where " the issue was ripe for decision by the appellate court at the time of the previous appeal; there has been no significant change in the underlying facts or applicable law; and the defendant has offered no reasonable justification for the delay."

    The states of Arizona ( State v. Rhodes (1975) 112 Ariz. 500, 506-507 [ 543 P.2d 1129, 1135-1136]), Florida ( Richardson v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986) 491 So.2d 1242), Idaho ( State v. Smith (1993) 123 Idaho 290, 291, fn. 2 [ 847 P.2d 265, 266]), Illinois ( People v. Wilson (1993) 257 Ill. App.3d 670 [195 Ill.Dec. 8, 628 N.E.2d 472, 496]), Maine ( State v. Haskell (Me. 1986) 515 A.2d 745, 746-747), and Maryland ( Loveday v. State (1983) 296 Md. 226, 230 [462 A.2d 745]), have adopted and applied a like principle. The rationale underlying the use of the waiver rule in the foregoing cases is equally applicable here.

  2. State v. Merwin

    131 Idaho 642 (Idaho 1998)   Cited 87 times
    In Merwin the Court addressed the issue of whether a "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" jury instruction that said the prosecution is not required to overcome "every possible doubt" misstated the law.

    "A decision to deny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is consistent with [the ยง 19-2521] standards." State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 293, 847 P.2d 265, 268 (Ct.App. 1993) (citation omitted). Since the district court weighed the ยง 19-2521 factors in reaching its decision, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in denying Merwin probation.

  3. Bowman v. State

    No. 50160 (Idaho Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)

    First, this Court will not engage in an exercise of comparative sentencing. State v. McFarland, 130 Idaho 358, 365, 941 P.2d 330, 337 (Ct. App. 1997); State v. Pederson, 124 Idaho 179, 183, 857 P.2d 658, 662 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 294, 847 P.2d 265, 269 (Ct. App. 1993).

  4. State v. Thomasson

    Docket No. 43300 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 6, 2016)

    However, this Court will not engage in an exercise of comparative sentencing. State v. McFarland, 130 Idaho 358, 365, 941 P.2d 330, 337 (Ct. App. 1997); State v. Pederson, 124 Idaho 179, 183, 857 P.2d 658, 662 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 294, 847 P.2d 265, 269 (Ct. App. 1993). It is well settled that not every offense in like category calls for identical punishment; there may properly be a variation in sentences between different offenders, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant in his or her individual case.

  5. State v. Bell

    Docket No. 40717 (Idaho Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2013)

    However, this Court will not engage in an exercise of comparative sentencing. State v. McFarland, 130 Idaho 358, 365, 941 P.2d 330, 337 (Ct. App. 1997); State v. Pederson, 124 Idaho 179, 183, 857 P.2d 658, 662 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 294, 847 P.2d 265, 269 (Ct. App. 1993). It is well settled that not every offense in like category calls for identical punishment; there may properly be a variation in sentences between different offenders, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant in his or her individual case.

  6. State v. Taylor

    Docket No. 39844 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 1, 2013)   Cited 1 times

    However, this Court will not engage in an exercise of comparative sentencing. State v. McFarland, 130 Idaho 358, 365, 941 P.2d 330, 337 (Ct. App. 1997); State v. Pederson, 124 Idaho 179, 183, 857 P.2d 658, 662 (Ct. App. 1993); State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 294, 847 P.2d 265, 269 (Ct. App. 1993). It is well settled that not every offense in like category calls for identical punishment; there may properly be a variation in sentences between different offenders, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant in his or her individual case.

  7. State v. Goodlett

    139 Idaho 262 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 18 times

    This report is purely advisory and is not binding on the court. State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 293, 847 P.2d 265, 268 (Ct.App. 1993). Upon receipt of the report, the court may suspend the sentence and place the defendant on probation or may relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant, thereby allowing execution of the original sentence of imprisonment. If jurisdiction is relinquished, the court may also reduce the sentence at that time.

  8. State v. Byington

    132 Idaho 597 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 11 times

    State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); Statev. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 847 P.2d 265 (Ct.App. 1993); State v. Cambron, 118 Idaho 624, 798 P.2d 469 (Ct.App. 1990); State v. Arnold, 115 Idaho 736, 769 P.2d 613 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Puga, 111 Idaho 874, 728 P.2d 398 (Ct.App. 1986). Pederson, 124 Idaho at 183, 857 P.2d at 662.

  9. State v. McFarland

    130 Idaho 358 (Idaho Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 27 times

    We decline this invitation. It is well settled that not every offense in like category calls for identical punishment; there may properly be a variation in sentences between different offenders, depending on the circumstances of the crime and the character of the defendant in his or her individual case. State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 847 P.2d 265 (Ct.App. 1993); State v. Cambron, 118 Idaho 624, 798 P.2d 469 (Ct.App. 1990); State v. Arnold, 115 Idaho 736, 769 P.2d 613 (Ct.App. 1989); State v. Puga, 111 Idaho 874, 728 P.2d 398 (Ct.App. 1986).Id.

  10. Smith v. State

    878 P.2d 805 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 5 times
    Deciding there was no ineffective assistance where counsel had previously represented a prosecution witness because there was no current representation of conflicting interests and, if anything, the information gained from the previous representation would be used to the defendant's advantage

    Smith moved for a reduction of his sentences under I.C.R. 35. On that motion the district court deleted the minimum confinement portion of the rape sentence because the crime had occurred prior to the effective date of the Unified Sentencing Act, I.C. ยง 19-2513. The rape sentence was modified to an indeterminate twenty-five year term. Smith's judgment of conviction and sentence for rape, as modified, were affirmed on appeal. State v. Smith, 123 Idaho 290, 847 P.2d 265 (Ct.App. 1993). In April, 1993, Smith filed an application for post-conviction relief seeking to have his sentences vacated.