Case ID: idaho_107/html/0510-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SHEPARD, Justice. BISTLINE, Justice,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

690 P.2d 1342
    STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Kelly Brian WILSON and David Zynn Wilson, Defendants, and Kelly Brian Wilson, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15377.
    Supreme Court of Idaho.
    Nov. 5, 1984.
    Alan Coffel, Homedale, for defendant-appellant.
    Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Myrna A.I. Stahman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
   SHEPARD, Justice.

This case is on petition for review from a decision of the Court of Appeals of the State of Idaho. See State v. Wilson, 105 Idaho 679, 672 P.2d 247 (Idaho App.1983). We deem the issues raised herein to be controlled by our opinion in the companion case of State v. Wilson, 107 Idaho 506, 690 P.2d 1338 (1984), released herewith. We have reviewed the assertions of defendant regarding the adequacy of the sentencing decision and find them to be without merit. See State v. Wilson, supra.

The decision of the Court of Appeals, to the effect that a fixed term of years less than life is a statutorily permissible sentence for the crime of first degree murder, is hereby reversed and the conviction and sentences imposed by the district court are reinstated. No costs or attorney’s fees on appeal.

DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES and HUNTLEY, JJ., concur.

BISTLINE, Justice,

dissenting.

Entertaining the same views expressed in the companion case of State v. Wilson, 107 Idaho 506, 690 P.2d 1338, I am unable to concur in the opinion for the Court authored by Justice Shepard. Observing what I perceive to be a state of equipoise in comparing the opinions of this Court with State v. Wilson, 105 Idaho 679, 672 P.2d 247 (Ct.App.1983), and not being fully persuaded as to the right of it, I would affirm the Court of Appeals — again suggesting to the legislature that perceived confusion in the statutory scheme would be better solved by the legislature than by this Court.