Hale claim in Idaho

2009However, in State v. Rodriguez, 119 Idaho 895 , 811 P.2d 505 (Ct.App.1991), the court expressly held that Rule 35 provided a basis for a challenge to the legality of a sentence based upon a claim that the trial court incorrectly calculated credit for time served prior to sentencing: The second issue raised by the state is whether Rodriguez’ Rule 35 motion was timely filed.

2009However, in State v. Rodriguez, 119 Idaho 895 , 811 P.2d 505 (Ct.App.1991), the court expressly held that Rule 35 provided a basis for a challenge to the legality of a sentence based upon a claim that the trial court incorrectly calculated credit for time served prior to sentencing: The second issue raised by the state is whether Rodriguez’ Rule 35 motion was timely filed.

1995Hale’s brief on appeal extensively quotes verbatim from, but fails to acknowledge *874 through citation, the Idaho Supreme Court decision in In re Williams, 120 Idaho 473 , 817 P.2d 139 (1991).

1995Hale’s brief on appeal extensively quotes verbatim from, but fails to acknowledge *874 through citation, the Idaho Supreme Court decision in In re Williams, 120 Idaho 473 , 817 P.2d 139 (1991).

1992A motion for summary judgment is to "be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c); McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765 , 820 P.2d 360 (1991); G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514 , 808 P.2d 851 (1991); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 118 Idaho 830 , 801 P.2d 37 (1990).

1992A motion for summary judgment is to "be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c); McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765 , 820 P.2d 360 (1991); G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514 , 808 P.2d 851 (1991); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 118 Idaho 830 , 801 P.2d 37 (1990).

1992A motion for summary judgment is to "be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c); McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765 , 820 P.2d 360 (1991); G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514 , 808 P.2d 851 (1991); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 118 Idaho 830 , 801 P.2d 37 (1990).

1992A motion for summary judgment is to "be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c); McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765 , 820 P.2d 360 (1991); G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514 , 808 P.2d 851 (1991); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 118 Idaho 830 , 801 P.2d 37 (1990).

1992A motion for summary judgment is to "be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c); McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765 , 820 P.2d 360 (1991); G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514 , 808 P.2d 851 (1991); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 118 Idaho 830 , 801 P.2d 37 (1990).

1992A motion for summary judgment is to "be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c); McCoy v. Lyons, 120 Idaho 765 , 820 P.2d 360 (1991); G & M Farms v. Funk Irrigation Co., 119 Idaho 514 , 808 P.2d 851 (1991); Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc., 118 Idaho 830 , 801 P.2d 37 (1990).

1989The thrust of Hale’s motion to correct his sentence is that the sentence is illegal to the extent that he was not given full credit in accord with I.C. § 18-309 for presentence incarceration. 3 See Law v. Rasmussen, 104 Idaho 455 , 660 P.2d 67 (1983).

1989The thrust of Hale’s motion to correct his sentence is that the sentence is illegal to the extent that he was not given full credit in accord with I.C. § 18-309 for presentence incarceration. 3 See Law v. Rasmussen, 104 Idaho 455 , 660 P.2d 67 (1983).

1963This claim is within the contemplation of the statute requiring that the action be for the “direct payment of money.” In Wallace v. Perry, 74 Idaho 86, 92 , 257 P.2d 231, 235 , this Court stated: “That the amount of recovery is uncertain and has to be proved does not defeat attachment.

1963This claim is within the contemplation of the statute requiring that the action be for the “direct payment of money.” In Wallace v. Perry, 74 Idaho 86, 92 , 257 P.2d 231, 235 , this Court stated: “That the amount of recovery is uncertain and has to be proved does not defeat attachment.