AGO 1994-O-0003.

• Case Date: July 06, 1994
• Court: Idaho

Idaho Attorney General Opinions 1994. AGO 1994-O-0003. July 6, 1994OPINION NO. 1994-O-0003ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 94-3To: Olivia Craven, Executive Director Commission for Pardons and Parole 280 N. 8th Street, Suite 140 STATEHOUSE MAIL Boise, ID 83720 Per Request for Attorney General's Opinion QUESTION PRESENTED May the Idaho Commission for Pardons and Parole commute a sentence during a fixed term under the Unified Sentencing Act? CONCLUSION The commission does have the power to commute a sentence during a fixed term. ANALYSIS In 1984, the attorney general issued an opinion stating that the Idaho Commission for Pardons and Parole had the power to commute fixed sentences under then existing law. 1984 Idaho Att'y Gen. Ann. Rpt. 75. The opinion was based in part on State v. Rawson, 100 Idaho 308, 597 P.2d 31 (1979), which held that then existing Idaho Code § 19-2513A (creating a fixed sentence structure) was intended solely to limit the commission's power of parole and did not restrict either the power of pardon or of commutation. This was so because the parole power is a creature of statute, whereas the power to pardon or commute was found in the Idaho Constitution as it then existed: [The commission], or a majority thereof, shall have power to grant commutations and pardons after conviction of a judgment, either absolutely or upon such conditions as they may impose in all cases against the state except treason or conviction on impeachment. Art. 4, § 7 (1947). The statutory implementation of this section was Idaho Code § 20-213, which set up procedures for notification if applications for commutation were scheduled to be heard by the board. In 1986, the legislature passed the Unified Sentencing Act. Idaho Code § 19-2513. In so doing, the legislature created a sentencing system whereby each convicted felon would be sentenced to a fixed term to be followed by an optional indeterminate term. This system was created in large part because of the legislature's sense that there was little certainty in Idaho's sentencing and release process: There are two major policy justifications for this proposal. First, by making the minimum period fixed and not subject to reduction, greater truth in sentencing is achieved. At the time of sentencing everyone knows the minimum period which must be served. Second, greater sentencing flexibility is achieved. . . . The court can impart the specific amount of punishment it feels to be just and still impose an indeterminate period to be used by the Commission for Pardons and Parole for rehabilitation and parole purposes. Statement of Purpose, H.B. 524 (1986). Consonant with this intent, the legislature appears to have attempted to affect not only parole during the fixed term, but other methods...