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 v. Williams

Court of Appeals of Idaho

August 23, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JASON LEONARD WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 636

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.

Appeal from order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended sentences, dismissed; order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified five-year sentence with two-year determinate term for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 40078, Jason Leonard Williams pled guilty to burglary, I.C. § 18-1401, and aiding and abetting grand theft, I.C. § 18-2403(1). The district court sentenced Williams to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for burglary and a concurrent unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years for aiding and abetting grand theft. However, the district court retained jurisdiction for 180 days. Thereafter, approximately 233 days later, the district court suspended Williams' sentence and placed him on probation.

In Docket No. 40077, Williams pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), and the district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run concurrent with Williams' sentences in Docket No. 40078. The district court revoked Williams' probation in Docket No. 40078, but retained jurisdiction in both cases. Following Williams' rider, the district court suspended the sentences and placed Williams on probation. Williams violated the terms of his probation, and the district court revoked probation and again retained jurisdiction in both cases. Once again, the district court suspended Williams' sentences and placed him back on probation. Probation was subsequently revoked and the suspended sentences ordered into execution. Williams filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. Williams appeals, challenging the excessiveness of his sentences and the Idaho Supreme Court's order denying the augmentation of transcripts on appeal.

A. Probation Revocation in Docket No. 40078

We consider first the state's argument that Williams cannot obtain relief because the district court had no jurisdiction to place Williams on probation following his rider in Docket No. 40078. The state is correct. Furthermore, Williams, in his appellant's brief, also acknowledges that the district court lost jurisdiction in this case.

Williams' judgment of conviction was entered on November 8, 2004, and on June 30, 2005, the district court entered an order suspending Williams' sentence. The district court's jurisdiction ceased to exist on May 7, 2005, and Williams automatically came under the control of the Department of Correction. See State v. Petersen, 149 Idaho 808, 31, 121 P.3d 961, 962 (Ct. App. 2010). Because the district court lost jurisdiction on May 7, 2005, all subsequent proceedings in Williams' case would have been a legal nullity. See Petersen, 149 Idaho 808, 811, 241 P.3d 981, 984 (Ct. App. 2010). Any attempt to place a defendant on probation after the expiration of the statutorily authorized review period is void. State v. Taylor, 142 ...


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.