BE IT REMEMBERED that the above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the Honorable John R. Stegner, District Judge, on September 1, 2015, at the hour of at 2:00 p.m., in the District courtroom of the Latah County Courthouse, City of Moscow, County of Latah, state of Idaho, the following proceedings were had as follows. . . .
COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and respectfully submits this initial response to the Defendant’s “Motions RE: Chaperones and Implementing Safety Plan” filed herein on the afternoon of August 3, 2016. . . .
Following up on the Hearing conducted on September 1, 2015, and particularly following up the colloquy between the Court and Counsel at that time regarding Defendant’s wife and parents, the Defendant respectfully moves the Court for the following Orders. . . .
COMES NOW the State of Idaho, by and through the Latah County Prosecuting Attorney, and respectfully submits the following preliminary response to the Affidavit of Mr. Monson, Declaration of Mr. Wullenwaber, and “Defense Submission,” all filed with the Court on January 13, 2016. . . .
COMES NOW the Defendant, by and through his attorneys of record, Dean Wullenwaber and Mark T. Monson, and moves the court for an Order that the DEFENSE SUBMISSION, filed on this date be sealed and not available for public view without a later order of the court. . . .
On December 23, 2015, a telephone conference was held to address the Defendant’s terms and conditions of probation. Dean Wullenwaber and Mark Monson participated on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant did not participate. The State was represented by William W. Thompson, Jr. . . .
On the 26th day of September, 2005, the Defendant, STEVEN JAMES SITLER, Defendant’s counsel, Dean Wullenwaber, and the State’s attorney, William W. Thompson, Jr., appeared before this Court for pronouncement of judgment. . . .
This being the time fixed pursuant to order of the Court for conducting a telephone conference in an attempt to consolidate terms and conditions of probation into one document in this case, Court noted the participation of counsel in this conference call. . . .