Opinion ID: 1118589
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: the trial court erred in resentencing the defendant.

Text: It appears that one of the crimes to which the Defendant pleaded guilty occurred prior to February 1, 1987, and the other crime occurred after that date. This means that the unified sentencing act of Idaho applies to one crime but not to the other. The Court evidently overlooked the amendment to the complaint showing the date of the crime to be March 3, 1987. The Idaho Judges Sentencing Manual, at page 717, says `Prior to the amendments and repeals of statutes effective February 1, 1987, I.C. Sec. 19-2513 and 19-2513A provided for the imposition of either an indeterminate sentence or an alternative fixed term sentence. Although these statutes are not in the current code volumes, they will still apply to offenses committed prior to February 1, 1987.' Although it is not considered as a sentencing alternative, the court always has the jurisdiction to correct an illegal sentence. [Rule 35, I.C.R.] However, the troubling thing about the District Court's action in resentencing the Defendant was that the fixed term was increased from two years to three years, and the sentence went from concurrent to consecutive. In addition, the Court added $750 payable to the Idaho State Police, and $1,200 payable to the County as costs of prosecution. It sounded to the Defendant like increased punishment for the violation of his probation, instead of merely imposing the previous sentence.