Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-107 (2026)

Determination of punishment by court. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Determination of punishment by court. 

Whenever, in this code, the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits, the punishment to be inflicted in a particular case, must be determined by the court authorized to pass sentence within such limits as may be prescribed by this code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2022 · leading case: State v. Edmonson, 743 P.2d 459 (Idaho 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Edmonson, 743 P.2d 459 (Idaho 1987). · cites it 4× “§ 18-1905 must be read in conjunction with I.C. § 18-107 which empowers a court to determine punishment: *470 "Whenever, in this code, the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits, the punishment to be inflicted in a particular case, must be determined…”
State v. John Scott Meier, 366 P.3d 197 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “” Next, I.C. § 18-107 instructs courts to impose sentences within statutorily-prescribed limits as follows: “Whenever, in this code, the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits, the punishment to be inflicted in a particular case, must be determined by…”
State v. Christopher D. Griffith, 336 P.3d 816 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Section 18-107 specifies: Whenever, in this code, the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits, the punishment to be inflicted in a particular case, must be determined by the court authorized to pass sentence within such limits as may be prescribed by…”
State v. Gish, 404 P.2d 595 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 2× “§ 6307 (I.C. § 18-107). In 1909 the legislature enacted the indeterminate sentence law.”
State v. James Butler Ramsey, 364 P.3d 1200 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “” Next, I.C. § 18-107 instructs courts to impose sentences within statutorily-prescribed limits as follows: “Whenever, in this code, the punishment for a crime is left undetermined between certain limits, the punishment to be inflicted in a particular case, must be determined by…”
State v. Carlos Montoya (Idaho Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code §§ 18-107 and 19-2513 grant trial courts discretion in imposing the fixed and indeterminate portions of a sentence.”
State v. McCoy, 486 P.2d 247 (Idaho 1971). · cites it 4× “See Annot. 101 A.L.R. 1402 . Today the courts have a full arsenal of tools to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice.”
State v. Frank Leslie Nicolai (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code §§ 18-107 and 19-2513 grant trial courts discretion in imposing the fixed and indeterminate portions of a sentence.”
Ray M. Nichols v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code §§ 18-107 and 19- 2513 grant trial courts discretion in imposing the fixed and indeterminate portions of a sentence.”
State v. Dub D. Tunstall (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code §§ 18-107 and 19-2513 grant trial courts discretion in imposing the fixed and indeterminate portions of a sentence.”
State v. Michael Lane Sparks (Idaho Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 18-107 gives the trial court the authority to impose a sentence anywhere within those limits and I.”
State v. Perez (Idaho Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “In Meier, we held that the persistent violator statute implies “life sentence” can mean a determinate life sentence because (1) I.C. § 18-107 allows a court to select a sentence within the statutorily established limits, and (2) I.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.