Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State of Idaho v. Max J. Gorringe

March 13, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MAX J. GORRINGE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Stephen Drescher, Juneal C. Kerrick, and Thomas J. Ryan, District Judges.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Melanson, Judge

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 397

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Orders denying motions to dismiss, affirmed; judgment of conviction for attempted strangulation, affirmed.

Max J. Gorringe appeals from orders denying his motions to dismiss in Docket Nos. 39638 and 39640. Gorringe also appeals from his judgment of conviction for attempted strangulation in Docket No. 39641, specifically challenging the denial of his motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

These cases have a somewhat complicated procedural history. Gorringe was charged by criminal complaint filed on February 26, 2011, with felony domestic battery and second degree kidnapping. A warrant for his arrest was served, but it appears that no further proceedings were held in that case and it was dismissed without prejudice on May 4, 2011. On the same day, another criminal complaint was filed charging Gorringe with felony domestic battery, second degree kidnapping, and attempted strangulation. A superseding indictment was filed on June 8, 2011, charging only felony domestic battery and second degree kidnapping. This case was appealed in Docket No. 39638. Gorringe was also charged with domestic battery and second degree kidnapping in a separate case which was initiated by a grand jury indictment filed on June 8, 2011. That case was appealed in Docket No. 39640. In still another case, Gorringe was charged with attempted strangulation and second degree kidnapping. That case was initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint on May 20, 2011. A superseding grand jury indictment was filed in that case on June 8, 2011. That case was appealed in Docket No. 39641. The charges in each case stem from apparently separate events involving the same victim. Gorringe's initial appearance in the two cases initiated by criminal complaint (Docket Nos. 39638 and 39641) was held on May 25, 2011, and a preliminary hearing was scheduled for June 13. However, on June 8, separate superseding indictments were filed in those two cases as well as an indictment in Docket No. 39640.

Gorringe filed motions to dismiss in all three cases for violation of I.C.R. 5.1(a), arguing that the timeframe for conducting a preliminary hearing had been exceeded. Two separate hearings were held before two different judges. The first judge denied the motion as to all three cases. At a second hearing regarding a motion to dismiss in Docket No. 39641, counsel for Gorringe abandoned the motion, seeking only reinstatement of previous bonds. The district court denied the motion. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Gorringe pled guilty only to one count of attempted strangulation (Docket No. 39641) and reserved his right to appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss. All of the remaining counts in all three cases were dismissed as part of the plea agreement. Gorringe now appeals and asserts that the district court erred when it denied his motions to dismiss.

II.

ANALYSIS

A. Docket Nos. 39638 & 39640

Gorringe filed a notice of appeal in these cases, but did not challenge the denial of his motions to dismiss. In a footnote in his brief, Gorringe states that he will not pursue either appeal because the cases were dismissed and rendered moot. Therefore, we affirm the district ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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