State v. Sima, 570 P.2d 1333 (Idaho 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Sima, 570 P.2d 1333 (Idaho 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
73 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Erik Virgil Hall (idaho, 2018-04-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Erik Virgil Hall
Idaho · 2018 · confidence medium
State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644 , 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lorezo Corral v. State
Idaho Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644 , 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1997).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Adrian Harthcock v. State
Idaho Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644 , 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Tucker (2×)
Idaho · 1998 · confidence medium
State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644 , 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1977).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Munster v. State
Idaho Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644 , 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1977); Hoffman v. State, 125 Idaho 188, 191 , 868 P.2d 516, 519 (Ct.App.1994); Kugler v. Drown, 119 Idaho 687 , 809 P.2d 1166 (Ct.App.1991).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Krueger
Idaho Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
The court found this argument unpersuasive, stated that the Kruegers were “articulate, intelligent, educated and sophisticated business people,” and held that “persons representing themselves in litigation are held to the same standards as persons represented by attorneys.” State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643, 644 , 570 P.2d 1333, 1334 (1977).
examined Cited "see" State v. Mason (4×)
Idaho · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643 , 570 P.2d 1333 (1977); accord, State v. Cotton, 100 Idaho 573 , 602 P.2d 71 (1979); State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382 , 582 P.2d 728 (1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Beason (2×)
Idaho Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
State v. Murinko, 108 Idaho 872, 911 , 702 P.2d 910 (Ct.App.1985); see, e.g., State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643 , 570 P.2d 1333 (1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Murinko (2×)
Idaho Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State v. Sima, 98 Idaho 643 , 570 P.2d 1333 (1977).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
Francis SIMA, Defendant-Appellant
12338.
Idaho Supreme Court.
Jul 11, 1977.
570 P.2d 1333
Francis Sima, pro se., Wayne L. Kidwell, Atty. Gen., James F. Kile, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from Francis Sima’s conviction for violation of I.C. § 18-6710, making repeated anonymous telephone calls with the intent to annoy. We affirm. Appellant was charged with the offense and tried before a magistrate sitting without a jury. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to a suspended ten day sentence and the payment of a $50.00 fine. On appeal to the district court that conviction was affirmed.

[*644] Other than the alleged facts set forth in appellant’s brief, we are without a record since appellant has failed to provide a reporter’s transcript. Upon appeal, appellant carries the burden of presenting such a record as to enable our review of the asserted errors. In the absence thereof we will not presume error. State v. Peterson, 87 Idaho 147, 391 P.2d 846 (1964). A litigant appearing pro se is held to the same standards and rules as one appearing with counsel. Scafco v. Rigby & Mason, 98 Idaho 432, 566 P.2d 381 (No. 12251, June 27, 1977).

The conviction is affirmed.