from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett,
denying motion to suppress and judgment of conviction,
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M.
Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Robert Hensley appeals from the judgment of conviction
entered upon his conditional guilty plea to possession of
methamphetamine. Hensley argues the district court erred in
denying his motion to suppress. Because Hensley fails to show
how the district court erred in its interpretation of Idaho
Criminal Rule 41(c), we affirm the district court's order
denying Hensley's motion to suppress and judgment of
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
detective was placed under oath in front of a magistrate and
submitted a signed affidavit in support of a search warrant
for Hensley's residence. The magistrate issued the search
warrant. Law enforcement searched Hensley's residence and
found a white crystal substance in a black plastic case along
with a metal spoon and syringe. Hensley was subsequently
arrested and charged with felony possession of
methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and
misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. §
37-2734A(1). The State later amended the information to add a
persistent violator sentencing enhancement, I.C. §
filed a motion to suppress and argued the search warrant
failed to comply with the requirements of I.C.R. 41 and was
therefore invalid. The district court held a hearing on
Hensley's motion to suppress. At the hearing, Hensley
clarified he was not contesting the probable cause for the
search warrant but rather, the procedure by which the search
warrant was handled. The district court denied Hensley's
motion to suppress.
to a plea agreement, Hensley entered a conditional plea of
guilty to possession of methamphetamine, and the State
dismissed the remaining charges. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of seven years, with one year determinate,
and retained jurisdiction. Hensley timely appeals.
standard of review of a suppression motion is bifurcated.
When a decision on a motion to suppress is challenged, we
accept the trial court's findings of fact that are
supported by substantial evidence, but we freely review the
application of constitutional principles to the facts as
found. State v. Atkinson, 128 Idaho 559, 561, 916
P.2d 1284, 1286 (Ct. App. 1996). At a suppression hearing,
the power to assess the credibility of witnesses, resolve
factual conflicts, weigh evidence, and draw factual
inferences is vested in the trial ...