1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44066

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT LYNN HANSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 737

Filed: October 19, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. 

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Robert Lynn Hanson, Boise, pro se appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori Anne Fleming, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Robert Lynn Hanson pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a child, Idaho Code § 18-1503. 

The district court imposed a unified fifteen-year sentence, with three years determinate, and 

retained jurisdiction. In December of 2005, following the period of retained jurisdiction, the

district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed the underlying sentence. In April of 2006, 

Hanson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district 

court denied. In March of 2016, Hanson filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for correction of sentence 

claiming the Idaho Department of Correction incorrectly calculated Hanson’s credit for time 

served when determining his release date. The district court denied the I.C.R. 35 motion. 

Hanson appeals.
2

Claims that Idaho Department of Correction has incorrectly calculated credit for time 

served or a release date are claims properly brought in a habeas petition; an I.C.R. 35 motion is 

not the appropriate motion to address this issue. Mickelsen v. Idaho State Correctional Instn., 

131 Idaho 352, 355, 955 P.2d 1131, 1134 (Ct. App. 1998). This is because once a defendant is 

sentenced, the district court loses jurisdiction except in very narrow circumstances. One of those 

circumstances is a timely I.C.R. 35 motion. I.C.R. 35. 

An I.C.R. 35(c) motion to correct the court’s calculation can be filed at any time; 

however, Hanson doesn’t claim any error in the sentence or in the court’s calculation of 454 days 

credit for time served. Instead, he asserts the I.D.O.C.’s calculation is incorrect. Given that 

concession and claim, the district court had no jurisdiction to hear Hanson’s I.C.R. 35 motion.

The relevant statute defining the parole commission’s discretion whether to award credit 

for time served during a period of parole is I.C. § 20-228. Here, the parole commission declined 

to award Hanson credit for time served as a condition of parole; that decision is not properly 

reviewed pursuant to an I.C.R. 35 motion, nor does the district court have any authority to alter 

the parole commission’s calculation for credit for time served. As such, the district court 

correctly denied Hanson’s I.C.R. 35 motion.

Since Hanson does not claim the district court erred in its credit for time served 

calculation and the district court does not have jurisdiction to correct credit for time served 

calculations made by the I.D.O.C., the order denying Hanson’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.