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. Davis

Court of Appeals of Idaho

May 30, 2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SHAWN O'SHAY DAVIS, II, Defendant-Appellant

2014 Opinion No. 46

Editorial Note:

This decision is not final until exception of the 21 day petition for rehearing period. Pursuant to rule 118 of the Idaho Appellate Rules

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Brian R. Dickson argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Nicole L. Schafer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Nicole L. Schafer argued.

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

OPINION

Page 418

LANSING, Judge.

Shawn O'Shay Davis, II pleaded guilty to grand theft by possession of a stolen motorcycle. He appeals from the district court's order of restitution, complaining that he should not be responsible for certain damage to the motorcycle that was caused by a third party to whom he sold it.

I.

BACKGROUND

A stolen motorcycle was recovered by law enforcement, but in a damaged condition. Davis was charged with grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code § § 18-2403(4) and 18-2407(1), for taking possession of the motorcycle when he knew or should have known that it had been stolen. Davis pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that specified he would pay restitution, but there was no agreement as to either the amount of restitution or the particular damage to be covered. Therefore, a restitution hearing was held after sentencing.

At the restitution hearing, the motorcycle's owner and a mechanic testified that the motorcycle had been in good condition with upgraded accessories before it was stolen, but that parts of the motorcycle had since been sanded, painted, stripped, and altered. In addition, there was damage to the body, including a bent frame and dented muffler, leading both men to conclude that it had been wrecked. The motorcycle also had mechanical damage to the engine, which the mechanic attributed to riding it hard ...


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.