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. Vaughn

Court of Appeals of Idaho

January 24, 2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CHARLES ALLEN VAUGHN, JR., Defendant-Appellant

2014 Opinion No. 4

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for felony violation of a no contact order, affirmed.

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett LLP; Deborah Whipple, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GRATTON, Judge. Chief Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge LANSING CONCUR.

OPINION

Page 498

[156 Idaho 14] GRATTON, Judge

Charles Allen Vaughn, Jr., appeals from his judgment of conviction for felony violation of a no contact order, Idaho Code § 18-920. We affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 30, 2009, Vaughn pled guilty to domestic violence in the presence of a child in Case No. CR-FE-2009-0014391. The district court sentenced Vaughn and entered a no contact order. The order listed the Case No. as CR-FE-2009-21560, a case that was previously dismissed pursuant to a plea agreement on December 3, 2009. Vaughn subsequently filed several motions to modify the no contact order. These motions were all filed under CR-FE-2009-0014391. The court denied the motions to modify. On March 21, 2012, Vaughn was served with an amended no contact order that changed only the Case No. to CR-FE-2009-0014391.

Vaughn violated the no contact order on multiple occasions. The State charged Vaughn with nine counts of violating the no contact order. Each charge alleged contact on a date before the court amended the order. Vaughn filed a motion to dismiss the information. He argued the no contact order was void because the case number listed on the order was from his dismissed case. The district court denied the motion, reasoning the dismissed case number was written as a clerical ...


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.