Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-2520E (2026)
Multiple enhanced penalties prohibited.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Multiple enhanced penalties prohibited.
Notwithstanding the enhanced penalty provisions in sections 19-2520, 19-2520A, 19-2520B and 19-2520C, Idaho Code, any person convicted of two (2) or more substantive crimes provided for in the above code sections, which crimes arose out of the same indivisible course of conduct, may only be subject to one (1) enhanced penalty.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: State v. Peregrina, 261 P.3d 815 (Idaho 2011).
State v. Peregrina, 261 P.3d 815 (Idaho 2011). “No instruction was requested by either Peregrina or the State regarding I.C. § 19-2520E, which states that when two crimes "arise out of the same indivisible course of conduct," the defendant "may only be subject to one (1) enhanced penalty.”
State v. Clements, 218 P.3d 1143 (Idaho 2009). “Approximately ten years later, Clements filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, arguing that he was illegally sentenced for two weapon enhancements because both shootings arose from the same indivisible course of conduct under I.C. § 19-2520E. The district court reversed…”
State v. Johns, 736 P.2d 1327 (Idaho 1987). “§ 19-2520 was limited in its effect by the enactment in 1983 of I.C. § 19-2520E, which reads: "19-2520E. Multiple enhanced penalties prohibited.”
State v. Custodio, 30 P.3d 975 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001). “§ 19-2520 was limited in scope by the later enactment of I.C. § 19-2520E. Idaho Code Section 19-2520E provides: “Notwithstanding the enhanced penalty provisions in sections 19-2520 .”
State v. McGiboney, 274 P.3d 1284 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). “§ 19-2520, the district court did not make a finding as to whether the aggravated battery and burglary arose out of an indivisible course of conduct under I.C. § 19-2520E. MeGiboney appeals. II. ANALYSIS A.”
State v. Searcy, 798 P.2d 914 (Idaho 1990). “However, I.C. § 19-2520E provides that "any person convicted of two (2) or more substantive crimes provided for in the above code sections, which crimes arose out of the same indivisible course of conduct, may only be subject to one (1) enhanced penalty.”
State v. Kerrigan, 141 P.3d 1054 (Idaho 2006). “The Court of Appeals determined the district court erred in ruling the motion was barred, noting that a motion to correct an illegal sentence can be brought at any time under Rule 35.”
State v. Randy Lyn McKinney, 291 P.3d 1036 (Idaho 2013). “The district court reviewed the transcript of the preliminary hearing in the case, and then granted the shooter’s motion.”
State v. Cheatham, 6 P.3d 815 (Idaho 2000). “In so holding, the Court stated: The statements and testimony at trial of both Julie Halverston and the defendant Johns clearly establish that the murder of Price was because of an ongoing longstanding hatred of Price by Johns____ It was only after Price had been mortally shot…”
State v. Hoffman, 55 P.3d 890 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “Firearm Enhancement We next examine Hoffman’s contention that the district court may have unlawfully enhanced both of his sentences for use of a firearm.”
Diego Peregrina v. State, 354 P.3d 510 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). “Peregrina appealed from the judgment of conviction, contending that, pursuant to I.C. § 19-2520E, he could only be subject to one sentence enhancement because the crimes arose out of the same indivisible course of conduct and that the district court erred by imposing multiple…”
State v. Searcy, 856 P.2d 897 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993). “However, the Court found that “the original sentence imposed on Searcy which contained two separate enhancements, was invalid since it violated I.C. § 19-2520E.” 118 Idaho at 638 , 798 P.”
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.