Idaho Supreme Court, 1977

State v. Sima

Idaho Supreme Court · Decided July 11, 1977 · Per Curiam

570 P.2d 1333; 98 Idaho 643; 1977 Ida. LEXIS 440 (Pacific Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

22 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. McCabe (Idaho 1980)
Golay v. Loomis (Idaho 1990)
State v. Erik Virgil Hall (Idaho 2018)
State v. Tucker (Idaho 1998)
Everhart v. Washington County Road & Bridge Department (Idaho 1997)
State v. Smith (Idaho Ct. App. 1995)
Golden Condor, Inc. v. Bell (Idaho 1987)
State v. Langley (Idaho 1986)
State v. Whelan (Idaho 1982)
State v. Mason (Idaho 1982)
State v. Harrold (Idaho Ct. App. 1988)
State v. Birrueta (Idaho 1981)
Lorezo Corral v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2017)
Adrian Harthcock v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2016)
Munster v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 1996)
State v. Stover (Idaho Ct. App. 1994)
State v. Clark (Idaho Ct. App. 1993)
Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Krueger (Idaho Ct. App. 1992)
State v. Beason (Idaho Ct. App. 1991)
State v. Burke (Idaho Ct. App. 1986)
State v. Murinko (Idaho Ct. App. 1985)
Makin v. Liddle (Idaho 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from Francis Sima’s conviction for violation of I.C. § 18-6710, making repeated anonymous telephone calls with the intent to annoy. We affirm. Appellant was charged with the offense and tried before a magistrate sitting without a jury. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to a suspended ten day sentence and the payment of a $50.00 fine. On appeal to the district court that conviction was affirmed.

*644 Other than the alleged facts set forth in appellant’s brief, we are without a record since appellant has failed to provide a reporter’s transcript. Upon appeal, appellant carries the burden of presenting such a record as to enable our review of the asserted errors. In the absence thereof we will not presume error. State v. Peterson, 87 Idaho 147, 391 P.2d 846 (1964). A litigant appearing pro se is held to the same standards and rules as one appearing with counsel. Scafco v. Rigby & Mason, 98 Idaho 432, 566 P.2d 381 (No. 12251, June 27, 1977).

The conviction is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.