Legal Opinion

State v. Arthur Gene Schmierer

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 2016No. 43140PublishedCited by 30 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

J. JONES, Chief Justice.

Appellant, Arthur Schmierer, filed a motion under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to correct an illegal sentence. In the underlying action, Schmierer had pled guilty to an amended superseding indictment that charged him with two counts of enticing children over the internet. Schmierer contends that the prosecutor improperly amended the indictment without resubmitting the matter to the grand jury, thereby depriving the district court of subject matter jurisdiction to convict him on the second enticement count. The district court denied Schmierer’s motion, concluding that…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. SeversonIdaho Supreme Court · 2009
  2. State v. O'NEILLIdaho Supreme Court · 1990
  3. State v. JonesIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
  4. State v. McKeehanIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
  5. State v. KavajeczIdaho Supreme Court · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. State v. HoskinsIdaho Supreme Court · 2019
  2. State v. Erik Virgil HallIdaho Supreme Court · 2018
  3. State v. JeskeIdaho Supreme Court · 2019
  4. State v. MiramontesIdaho Supreme Court · 2022
  5. State v. Gonzales, Jr.Idaho Supreme Court · 2019

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API