State v. Wood

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51823

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 9, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SHAWN VERNON WOOD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood,
District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a) motion, affirmed and case remanded for
entry of an amended judgment of conviction.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Elizabeth H. Estess, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
Shawn Vernon Wood appeals from the district court’s order denying his Idaho Criminal
Rule 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence. The district court imposed a unified sentence of
ten years, with three years determinate, for the domestic battery charge, a five-year indeterminate
sentence for the persistent violator enhancement, and ordered the sentences to run consecutively.
Wood requests that this Court vacate the portion of Wood’s sentence related to the persistent
violator enhancement because the district court imposed an illegal separate sentence for the
enhancement. We hold the district court did not err by denying Wood’s motion and the proper
correction as allowed by I.C.R. 35(a) is to modify Wood’s underlying sentence for domestic
battery with traumatic injury.

1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Wood was in downtown Boise with his then girlfriend, G.H. A passerby saw G.H. with
blood around her mouth. Initially, G.H. would not admit or deny that Wood was the one who
caused the injury, but then G.H. gestured towards Wood to indicate that he had caused the injury.
The passerby offered to escort G.H. to nearby police officers and, at that time, Wood became
confrontational. The passerby restrained Wood at the scene until officers arrived. When officers
arrived, G.H. eventually admitted that Wood had punched her in the face after the two of them got
into an argument.
Wood was charged with felony domestic battery with traumatic injury, Idaho Code
§§ 18-903, -918(2). The State filed a Part II to the information, alleging Wood is a persistent
violator, I.C. § 19-2514. Wood pleaded guilty to the domestic battery charge and admitted to the
persistent violator enhancement.
The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with three years determinate, for
the domestic battery charge and a five-year indeterminate sentence for the persistent violator
enhancement and ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Wood filed an I.C.R. 35(a) motion
for correction of his sentence arguing his sentence was illegal because he was improperly
sentenced separately for the persistent violator enhancement. Wood also argued that the district
court incorrectly believed it was obligated to run the persistent violator enhancement sentence
consecutively to his domestic battery sentence and asked that it be ordered to run concurrently.
Wood’s I.C.R. 35(a) motion was denied, but the district court noted the error in treating the
persistent violator enhancement as a separate charge and indicated it would amend the judgment
to correct the illegal sentence. Wood objected to the correction and, as a result, no amended
judgment was entered. Wood appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to I.C.R. 35(a), the district court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. In
an appeal from the denial of a motion under I.C.R. 35(a) to correct an illegal sentence, the question
of whether the sentence imposed is illegal is a question of law freely reviewable by the appellate
court. State v. Josephson, 124 Idaho 286, 287, 858 P.2d 825, 826 (Ct. App. 1993).

2
III.
ANALYSIS
Wood argues that mindful of Lopez v. State, 108 Idaho 394, 700 P.2d 16 (1985) and State
v. Lopez, 107 Idaho 826, 693 P.2d 472 (Ct. App. 1984), the district court abused its discretion in
denying his I.C.R. 35(a) motion. Wood requests this Court vacate the sentence imposed for the
persistent violator sentencing enhancement.
Idaho Code § 18-918(2), the statute under which Wood was charged, carries a maximum
potential sentence of ten years. The persistent violator enhancement statute, I.C. § 19-2514,
permits a trial court to increase the maximum underlying sentence from an additional five years
up to life imprisonment. When Wood and the State entered into a plea agreement, the State
informed Wood that based on the felony domestic battery charge and the persistent violator
enhancement, it would ask for a unified sentence of fifteen years, with four years determinate. The
district court imposed separate, concurrent sentences for the domestic battery charge and the
persistent violator enhancement.
After Wood filed his I.C.R. 35(a) motion, the district court indicated that instead of
vacating the sentence attributable to the sentencing enhancement, the district court would modify
the sentence on the domestic battery charge to include the enhancement. The parties do not dispute
that it was error for the district court to impose a separate sentence on the enhancement, as the
persistent violator enhancement in I.C. § 19-2514 does not create a new crime but instead permits
the court to impose a greater sentence for the conviction at issue and is thus a sentencing
enhancement. Olsen v. State, 156 Idaho 922, 926, 332 P.3d 834, 838 (Ct. App. 2014).
In Lopez v. State, the Idaho Supreme Court held that where sentences are interrelated, as
here, a separate sentence for being a persistent violator makes the entire sentence invalid ab initio
and thus, the trial court was required to correct the sentence. Lopez, 108 Idaho at 396, 700 P.2d at
18. Therefore, the district court did not err in concluding that the correct remedy for Wood’s
I.C.R. 35(a) motion is to amend Wood’s judgment of conviction and correct the underlying
sentence.
Wood’s argument that the district court must vacate his persistent violator sentence was
rejected in State v. Lopez, where this Court held that when sentencing provisions are clearly
interdependent, such as in this case, if the sentence on one provision is unlawful, the entire sentence
is unlawful and may be amended. Lopez, 107 Idaho at 828, 693 P.2d at 474. The district court did

3
not abuse its discretion in denying Wood’s I.C.R. 35(a) motion to correct an illegal sentence by
amending the judgment to run the sentencing enhancement concurrently with the sentence for the
domestic battery conviction. Moreover, Wood is not entitled to have the persistent violator
enhancement dismissed. The district court should amend the judgment of conviction to correct
the sentence.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Wood’s I.C.R. 35(a) motion to
correct an illegal sentence. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Wood’s I.C.R. 35(a)
motion is affirmed. We remand this case for the district court to enter an amended judgment of
conviction.
Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge TRIBE, CONCUR.

4