Justia Idaho Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A grand jury indicted Defendant-Appellant Daniel Lute for "battery with the intent to commit a serious felony," specifically "rape and/or kidnapping." A judgment of conviction was entered, sentencing Defendant to five years in prison to run concurrently with a sentence Defendant was already serving. The judgment did not specify which serious felony Defendant had intended to commit when he committed the battery. Approximately nine years after the expiration of Defendant's sentence, Defendant filed an ICR 35 motion: the Department of Corrections' records incorrectly showed Defendant had committed a sex crime. Defendant wanted to eliminate confusion. The district court granted Defendant's request, and the judgment was amended to reflect the correct sentence. Five months later, Defendant filed a second ICR 35 motion arguing his sentence was invalid under Idaho law, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it entered the judgment, because the grand jury's term had expired at the time he was indicted. The district court denied Defendant's second ICR 35 motion; the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Defendant's petition for review, and found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to convict Defendant when the grand jury indicted him. The Court reversed and remanded the case to the lower court to vacate Defendant's conviction. View "Idaho v. Lute" on Justia Law