State v. Schall

Citation337 P.3d 647,157 Idaho 488
Decision Date29 October 2014
Docket NumberNo. 41645.,41645.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho
Parties STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Gary L. SCHALL, Defendant–Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Shawn F. Wilkerson argued.

Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Daphne J. Huang argued.

J. JONES, Justice.

Gary Schall was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. Schall had two prior convictions for driving under the influence within the previous ten years, one of which stemmed from a 2004 arrest in Wyoming. As a result of his prior convictions, the State enhanced his DUI charge to a felony pursuant to Idaho Code section 18–8005(6). At Schall's preliminary hearing, the magistrate found that there was probable cause to bind the case over to district court. Schall filed a motion to dismiss in the district court, arguing that the State had the burden at the preliminary hearing to provide probable cause to believe his Wyoming DUI conviction was for a "substantially conforming foreign criminal violation," that the State failed to meet that burden, and that the Wyoming conviction was not in fact a substantially conforming violation. The district court denied Schall's motion, finding that the State met its burden at the preliminary hearing and that the Wyoming statute substantially conformed to Idaho's DUI statute. Schall appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss and the Court of Appeals reversed. The State then petitioned this Court for review, which we granted.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On August 8, 2011, Gary Schall was arrested for driving under the influence in violation of Idaho Code section 18–8004(1)(a). The State's complaint included an enhancement which elevated the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony under Idaho Code section 18–8005(6). That provision states that a person who is guilty of violating Idaho Code section 18–8004(1) and "who previously has been found guilty of ... two (2) or more violations of [ I.C. § 18–8004(1)(a), (b), or (c) ] or any substantially conforming foreign criminal violation, or any combination thereof, within ten (10) years ... shall be guilty of a felony." I.C. § 18–8005(6). At the time of his arrest, Schall had two prior DUI convictions within the last ten years: a November 2004 conviction in Idaho and a September 2004 conviction in Wyoming.

The State offered self-authenticating, certified records of Schall's two prior DUI convictions at the preliminary hearing, with no objection from Schall. At the close of the preliminary hearing, Schall moved to dismiss, arguing that the State did not provide probable cause to believe he committed the felony offense because there was inadequate reason to believe the Wyoming statute under which he received his DUI conviction substantially conformed to Idaho's DUI statute. Schall argued that it was the State's burden at the preliminary hearing to place the Wyoming statute into evidence and demonstrate that the statute substantially conformed to Idaho's. The magistrate disagreed, holding that once records of conviction were admitted, "it becomes the burden of the defendant to show that the statute is non-complying and that ... should be done at the district court level." Ultimately, the magistrate bound the case over to district court, finding that the State made a prima facie case.

In the district court, Schall filed a motion to dismiss, making the same argument he did below—that the State failed to show probable cause because it did not demonstrate that the Wyoming statute substantially conformed to the Idaho statute. In the alternative, Schall argued that the Wyoming statute did not substantially conform to the Idaho statute. The district court denied Schall's motion to dismiss. It found that the State was not required to show probable cause at the preliminary hearing that the Wyoming DUI statute substantially conformed to Idaho's. It also found, however, that the Wyoming statute does in fact substantially conform to Idaho's. Thereafter, Schall entered a conditional guilty plea to felony DUI, reserving the right to appeal "the decision on defendant's motion to dismiss/challenge bind over." The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with two years fixed, but suspended the sentence and placed Schall on probation. Schall timely appealed.

The Court of Appeals reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the State had the burden at the preliminary hearing to provide probable cause to believe that the Wyoming DUI statute substantially conformed to Idaho's statute and that the State failed to carry that burden. This Court granted the State's petition for review. The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Schall's motion to dismiss because the State failed to show probable cause that Wyoming's DUI statute substantially conforms to Idaho's DUI statute.

II.ANALYSIS
A. Standard of review.

"In cases that come before this Court on a petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision, this Court gives serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the lower court." State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 724, 170 P.3d 387, 389 (2007). A magistrate's decision that probable cause exists "should be overturned only on a clear showing that the committing magistrate abused his discretion." State v. O'Mealey, 95 Idaho 202, 204, 506 P.2d 99, 101 (1973). In reviewing a discretionary decision on appeal, "this Court must consider whether the district court (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) reached its decision by an exercise of reason." Sun Valley Potato Growers, Inc. v. Texas Refinery Corp., 139 Idaho 761, 765, 86 P.3d 475, 479 (2004). In general, "[t]he denial of a motion to dismiss following a preliminary hearing will not be disturbed on appeal if, under any reasonable view of the evidence including permissible inferences, it appears likely that an offense occurred and that the accused committed it." State v. Holcomb, 128 Idaho 296, 299, 912 P.2d 664, 667 (Ct.App.1995).

B. The district court did not err in denying Schall's motion to dismiss.

When charged with a felony, a defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing before a magistrate. I.C.R. 5.1(a). "The function of a preliminary hearing in Idaho is to determine if an offense has been committed, and further if there is probable cause to believe that the crime was committed by the accused." State v. Elisondo, 114 Idaho 412, 414, 757 P.2d 675, 677 (1988). If the magistrate finds that an offense occurred and there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed it, the magistrate must bind the defendant over to the district court. I.C. § 19–815. Otherwise, the magistrate must dismiss the complaint and order the defendant released. I.C. § 19–814. A defendant who has been bound over to the district court may still challenge the finding of probable cause by filing a motion to dismiss. I.C. § 19–815A. If the district court disagrees with the magistrate regarding the existence of probable cause, the district court must dismiss the complaint and order the defendant released. Id. A finding of probable cause must "be based upon substantial evidence upon every material element of the offense charge." I.C.R. 5.1(b). As a result, the adequacy of a showing at the preliminary hearing stage may depend upon whether a particular factual allegation is an element of the offense charged.

Schall claims that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because the State failed to provide probable cause with respect to one element of the offense of which he was charged. In particular, Schall claims that the State did not provide probable cause to believe he was previously convicted at least twice under Idaho's DUI statute or a substantially conforming foreign statute. Idaho Code section 18–8004 prohibits driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or any other intoxicating substances. Idaho Code section 18–8005(6) provides:

Except as provided in section 18–8004C, Idaho Code, any person who pleads guilty to or is found guilty of a violation of the provisions of section 18–8004(1)(a), (b) or (c), Idaho Code, who previously has been found guilty of or has pled guilty to two (2) or more violations of the provisions of section 18–8004(1)(a), (b) or (c), Idaho Code, or any substantially conforming foreign criminal violation, or any combination thereof, within ten (10) years, notwithstanding the form of the judgment(s) or withheld judgment(s), shall be guilty of a felony....

Schall claims that Idaho Code section 18–8005(6) creates a separate offense—distinct from the offense defined by Idaho Code section 18–8004 —with prior convictions of the relevant sort as elements of that offense. If that view were correct, then the State would have been required to present evidence at the preliminary hearing that Schall's prior Wyoming conviction was a substantially conforming violation.

That reading of the provision is not correct, however. Idaho Code section 18–8005(6) requires that a violation of Idaho Code section 18–8004 be enhanced to a felony in certain circumstances. The existence of two or more convictions under Idaho Code section 18–8004, or some substantially similar statute, are predicates for the enhancement and not elements of a separate offense. "[E]nhancements are not considered to be a new offense for which there is a separate sentence. Rather, the enhancement is an additional term and is part of a single sentence for the underlying crime." State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 658–59, 978 P.2d 214, 218–19 (1999). As a result, we hold that the State was not required at the preliminary hearing to provide...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • State v. Schall, 41645.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • October 29, 2014
    ...157 Idaho 488337 P.3d 647STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondentv.Gary L. SCHALL, Defendant–Appellant.No. 41645.Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, August 2014 Term.Oct. 29, 2014.337 P.3d 648Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Shawn F. Wilkerson argued.337 P.3d 64......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT