State v. Barr

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Barr’s Rule 35(a) motion challenging the constitutionality of mandatory consecutive sentences for repeat child-sex offenders. The Court held that the Idaho Constitution’s mandatory-minimum-sentence provision permits the Legislature to prescribe sentence length but not the timing of multiple sentences; however, the power to determine concurrent or consecutive service was not reserved exclusively to the judiciary at common law, so the statutory mandate does not violate separation of powers. The Court affirmed under the right-result, wrong-theory doctrine.