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. Hensley

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 16, 2018

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
SCOTT ROBERT HENSLEY, Defendant-Appellant.

          Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge.

         Order denying motion to suppress and judgment of conviction, affirmed.

          Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

          HUSKEY, JUDGE.

         Scott 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 conviction.

         I.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A 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. § 19-2514.

         Hensley 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.

         Pursuant 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.

         II.

         STANDARD OF REVIEW

         The 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 ...


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.