Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Idaho v. Timothy Shannon Forgett

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


December 5, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
TIMOTHY SHANNON FORGETT,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 754

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Order denying successive I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

Timothy Shannon Forgett was convicted of four counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4); 18-2407(1). The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years with two years determinate on each count. Forgett filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Forgett subsequently filed a "Motion to Reconsider Motion for Sentence Reduction" which was also denied. Forgett filed a notice of appeal that is timely only from the denial of his motion for reconsideration.

A motion for reconsideration of a Rule 35 motion is, in substance, a successive Rule 35 motion. As Forgett acknowledges in his appellant's brief, a successive Rule 35 motion is prohibited by that rule, and a trial court therefore lacks jurisdiction to grant a successive Rule 35 motion. See State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732-33, 52 P.3d 875, 877-78 (Ct. App. 2002). Consequently, Forgett's motion for reconsideration was properly denied by the district court because that court possessed no jurisdiction to grant such a motion.

Accordingly, the district court's order denying Forgett's motion to reconsider the district court's order denying his initial Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

20121205

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.