Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Hills
Citations: 130 Idaho 763; 947 P.2d 1011; 1997 Ida. App. LEXIS 120Docket: No. 23624
Court: Idaho Court of Appeals; November 6, 1997; Idaho; State Appellate Court
Allan E. Hills appeals his conviction and sentence for felony driving under the influence (DUI) and the denial of his motion for sentence reduction under Idaho Criminal Rule 35. On December 13, 1996, Hills pled guilty to felony DUI. The district court sentenced him to a unified term of four years with a minimum confinement of one year. Hills subsequently filed a Rule 35 motion for a reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied without a hearing. Hills appealed, arguing that the sentence was excessive and that the court abused its discretion by not holding a hearing on his motion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s actions, noting that a sentence within statutory limits is typically not reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. The court found that the district court's sentence was reasonable given Hills' extensive criminal history, including multiple DUIs and felony convictions for possession of controlled substances. The court also considered the objectives of sentencing: punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection. Regarding the denial of the Rule 35 motion, the appellate court noted that the trial court has discretion in deciding whether to hold a hearing. Hills' motion did not provide new information or evidence that warranted a hearing, and he failed to explain why he could not present evidence through affidavits. Consequently, the court concluded that the district court acted within its discretion in denying the hearing. The judgment of conviction and the sentence of one to four years was affirmed.