Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. McCoolgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165, 169 , 139 P.3d 767, 771 (Ct.App.2006) (holding that orders for restitution under I.C. § 19-5304(2) are distinct from orders for compensation of the victim that may be included as terms of probation under I.C. § 19-2601(2)); see also State v. McCool, 139 Idaho 804, 806 , 87 P.3d 291, 293 (2004). 2007See State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165, 169 , 139 P.3d 767, 771 (Ct.App.2006) (holding that orders for restitution under I.C. § 19-5304(2) are distinct from orders for compensation of the victim that may be included as terms of probation under I.C. § 19-2601(2)); see also State v. McCool, 139 Idaho 804, 806 , 87 P.3d 291, 293 (2004). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Parkergreen2 sentences2007See State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165, 169 , 139 P.3d 767, 771 (Ct.App.2006) (holding that orders for restitution under I.C. § 19-5304(2) are distinct from orders for compensation of the victim that may be included as terms of probation under I.C. § 19-2601(2)); see also State v. McCool, 139 Idaho 804, 806 , 87 P.3d 291, 293 (2004). 2007See State v. Parker, 143 Idaho 165, 169 , 139 P.3d 767, 771 (Ct.App.2006) (holding that orders for restitution under I.C. § 19-5304(2) are distinct from orders for compensation of the victim that may be included as terms of probation under I.C. § 19-2601(2)); see also State v. McCool, 139 Idaho 804, 806 , 87 P.3d 291, 293 (2004). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wageniusgreen2 sentences2007See Wagenius, 99 Idaho at 279 , 581 P.2d at *783 325. 2006The latter statute authorizes a trial court to place a defendant on probation “under such terms and conditions as it deems necessary and expedient.” Section 19-2601(2) is designed to give courts “maximum flexibility to fashion the sentence most appropriate to the individual defendant.” State v. McCool, 139 Idaho 804, 807 , 87 P.3d 291, 294 (2004); State v. Wagenius, 99 Idaho 273, 279 , 581 P.2d 319, 325 (1978). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wardlegreen2 sentences2007See McCool, 139 Idaho at 807 , 87 P.3d at 294 ; State v. Jeffs, 140 Idaho 466, 469 , 95 P.3d 84, 87 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 811 , 53 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Ct.App.2002); Breeden, 129 Idaho at 816 , 932 P.2d at 939 . 2007See McCool, 139 Idaho at 807 , 87 P.3d at 294 ; State v. Jeffs, 140 Idaho 466, 469 , 95 P.3d 84, 87 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 811 , 53 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Ct.App.2002); Breeden, 129 Idaho at 816 , 932 P.2d at 939 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jeffsgreen2 sentences2007See McCool, 139 Idaho at 807 , 87 P.3d at 294 ; State v. Jeffs, 140 Idaho 466, 469 , 95 P.3d 84, 87 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 811 , 53 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Ct.App.2002); Breeden, 129 Idaho at 816 , 932 P.2d at 939 . 2007See McCool, 139 Idaho at 807 , 87 P.3d at 294 ; State v. Jeffs, 140 Idaho 466, 469 , 95 P.3d 84, 87 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 811 , 53 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Ct.App.2002); Breeden, 129 Idaho at 816 , 932 P.2d at 939 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murillogreen2 sentences2005State v. Murillo, 135 Idaho 811, 814 , 25 P.3d 124, 127 (Ct.App.2001). 2005State v. Murillo, 135 Idaho 811, 814 , 25 P.3d 124, 127 (Ct.App.2001). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1994State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939, 940 , 842 P.2d 275, 276 (1992); State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 585 , 618 P.2d 759, 763 (1980). *44 Instead of imposing a prison term in the Board’s custody, the court may suspend the sentence of incarceration and place the defendant on probation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(2). 1994State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939, 940 , 842 P.2d 275, 276 (1992); State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 585 , 618 P.2d 759, 763 (1980). *44 Instead of imposing a prison term in the Board’s custody, the court may suspend the sentence of incarceration and place the defendant on probation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(2). | 1 | 1 |
State v. McGonigalgreen2 sentences1994State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939, 940 , 842 P.2d 275, 276 (1992); State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 585 , 618 P.2d 759, 763 (1980). *44 Instead of imposing a prison term in the Board’s custody, the court may suspend the sentence of incarceration and place the defendant on probation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(2). 1994State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939, 940 , 842 P.2d 275, 276 (1992); State v. Johnson, 101 Idaho 581, 585 , 618 P.2d 759, 763 (1980). *44 Instead of imposing a prison term in the Board’s custody, the court may suspend the sentence of incarceration and place the defendant on probation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2601(2). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garry K. Widmyer
green
2 sentences2020This Court noted that the only limitation on a condition of probation under I.C. § 19-2601(2) is that it “reasonably relate to rehabilitation.” Id. at 446, 313 P.3d at 774 . 2020This Court noted that the only limitation on a condition of probation under I.C. § 19-2601(2) is that it “reasonably relate to rehabilitation.” Id. at 446, 313 P.3d at 774 . | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Breeden
green
2 sentences2007See McCool, 139 Idaho at 807 , 87 P.3d at 294 ; State v. Jeffs, 140 Idaho 466, 469 , 95 P.3d 84, 87 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 811 , 53 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Ct.App.2002); Breeden, 129 Idaho at 816 , 932 P.2d at 939 . 2007See McCool, 139 Idaho at 807 , 87 P.3d at 294 ; State v. Jeffs, 140 Idaho 466, 469 , 95 P.3d 84, 87 (Ct.App.2004); State v. Wardle, 137 Idaho 808, 811 , 53 P.3d 1227, 1230 (Ct.App.2002); Breeden, 129 Idaho at 816 , 932 P.2d at 939 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gish
green
2 sentences1971As was stated in State v. Gish, 89 Idaho 334, at 341 , 404 P.2d 595 (1965): “The application for probation under the provisions of I.C. § 19-2601 is not in the form of an application for mitigation of punishment, * * * but is an application for the exercise of the law’s humane provisions to allow a person an opportunity to become rehabilitated under proper control and supervision.” Kauffman will require rehabilitation after his penitentiary experience. 1971As was stated in State v. Gish, 89 Idaho 334, at 341 , 404 P.2d 595 (1965): “The application for probation under the provisions of I.C. § 19-2601 is not in the form of an application for mitigation of punishment, * * * but is an application for the exercise of the law’s humane provisions to allow a person an opportunity to become rehabilitated under proper control and supervision.” Kauffman will require rehabilitation after his penitentiary experience. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.