Maxfield v. State

• Decision Date: 30 April 1985
• Docket Number: No. 15035,15035
• Parties: Cyrus E. MAXFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 115

700 P.2d 115

108 Idaho 493

Cyrus E. MAXFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

No. 15035.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

April 30, 1985.

Raymond B. Littlefield, Boise, for petitioner-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., for respondent.

SWANSTROM, Judge.

In 1981 Cyrus Maxfield, a naturopathic physician, was convicted by a jury on twenty-one counts ranging from possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver to involuntary manslaughter. Maxfield then entered a plea of guilty to a charge of being a persistent violator of the law. He was sentenced on all twenty-one counts, but he appealed only the manslaughter conviction.

On July 17, 1981, while his appeal was still pending, Maxfield filed a petition for post-conviction relief in district court. He alleged solely that his "conviction[s] and incarceration were unlawful and unconstitutional" because his persistent violator status was impermissibly based on what he claimed was an invalid 1969 felony conviction in the State of Washington.

The case was initially assigned to District Judge Gerald Schroeder. He filed a memorandum opinion and order denying Maxfield's petition for post-conviction relief. In the meantime, Maxfield filed a supplemental petition in January 1982, challenging his Idaho convictions. Judge Schroeder, however, disqualified himself from determining the claims made in the supplemental petition because he had issued one of the search warrants challenged in that petition. The case was then assigned to District Judge Robert Newhouse, who issued a decision on April 15, 1983 denying the supplemental petition in toto. Maxfield then filed this appeal.

In May 1983, perturbed by what he perceived to be an inordinate delay in the Idaho state appellate process, Maxfield filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The state opposed the petition on the ground that Maxfield had not exhausted his state remedies. The state pointed out that no opinion had yet issued in either of Maxfield's appeals. A federal magistrate determined that the delay in the Idaho appellate process justified proceeding with the hearing on the petition for habeas corpus. Shortly after this determination, we issued our opinion on Maxfield's first appeal, affirming his manslaughter conviction. State v. Maxfield, 106 Idaho 206, 677 P.2d 519 (Ct.App.1984). No petition for review was filed in the Idaho Supreme Court. On September 14, 1984, a second federal magistrate issued an opinion recommending that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus be denied. Thereafter, on February 22, 1985, the federal district court accepted the magistrate's recommendation and denied the writ. We reach the same result here. We now affirm the state district court decisions denying Maxfield's petitions for post-conviction relief.

Maxfield's appeal has given us numerous issues to review. First, he contends that the state district court did not discuss or specifically determine each issue raised by the supplemental petition for post-conviction relief as required by I.C. § 19-4907(a). Second, he argues that inadequate and ineffective assistance of counsel deprived him of the right to a fair trial. Third, he maintains that his guilty plea to the persistent violator charge was invalid. Fourth, he argues that the Idaho Medical Practice Act, I.C. § 54-1801 et seq., is unconstitutional on its face and as it is applied to naturopathic physicians. Fifth, he argues that the search warrant and the arrest warrant were unlawfully executed. Sixth, he contends that the search warrant was insufficient under the standards of the fourth amendment to the United States Constitution. Seventh, he argues that his conviction for unlawfully assuming the title of a licensed medical doctor was invalid. Eighth, he contends that his conviction for obtaining money under false pretenses was also invalid. Ninth, he argues that his conviction for involuntary manslaughter was invalid and unconstitutional. We review each of these points.

I

We will first discuss whether the district court erred in failing to determine each claim raised by Maxfield in his supplemental petition. Idaho Code § 19-4907(a) provides in part: "If the court finds in favor of the applicant, it shall enter an appropriate order with respect to the conviction or sentence in the former proceedings. ... The court shall make specific findings of fact, and state expressly its conclusions of law, relating to each issue presented." (Emphasis added.) In State v. Morris, 101 Idaho 120, 609 P.2d 652 (1980), the trial court denied a petition for post-conviction relief, but failed to address the petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. On appeal, our Supreme Court stated the general rule that "[w]ithout a specific statement by the trier of fact detailing what facts are found to be true, and what conclusions of law are reached, [an appellate court] is severely hampered in its assessment of [the petitioner's] appeal." Id. at 124, 609 P.2d at 656. The court then professed an inability "to ascertain whether the trial court actually considered" the serious claim of ineffective assistance. Accordingly, the case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

After carefully examining Maxfield's two petitions for post-conviction relief, and the opinions and orders of the two district court judges, we conclude that some of the claims made by Maxfield in his supplemental petition were indeed neglected in the opinion denying that petition. The threshold questions are whether such neglect requires a reversal in every case and, if not, under what circumstances may we affirm. The purpose behind the requirement in I.C. § 19-4907(a), that the trial court make specific findings of fact and expressly state its conclusions of law on each issue, is to afford the appellate court an adequate basis upon which to assess any appeal arising from the denial of a petition for post-conviction relief. See State v. Morris, supra; see also ABA STANDARDS RELATING TO POST-CONVICTION REMEDIES § 4.6, at 78 (1968). This is the same purpose as that behind the rule requiring findings of fact in other civil cases. See I.R.C.P. 52(a); Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 103 Idaho 217, 646 P.2d 988 (1982). See also I.C.R. 57(b). Accordingly, we hold that under I.C. § 19-4907(a), as under I.R.C.P. 52(a), "[t]he absence of findings and conclusions may be disregarded by the appellate court only where the record is clear, and yields an obvious answer to the relevant question." Pope v. Intermountain Gas Co., 103 Idaho at 225, 646 P.2d at 996 (emphasis original). The failure of the trial court to make specific findings and state its conclusions thus does not necessarily require reversal. We therefore will examine each neglected claim under the Pope standard to determine whether the district court committed reversible error.

A

The first claim neglected by the district court concerns the validity and constitutionality of Maxfield's involuntary manslaughter conviction. The court stated only that "[t]he petitioner challenges twenty of the twenty-one counts. The twenty-first count is ... on appeal." The district court apparently believed that the appeal of the manslaughter conviction pending before this court at that time absolved it of the duty or deprived it of the right to determine the claim. Without resolving the district court's dilemma, we hold that the record is clear and yields obvious answers to the relevant questions. Maxfield attacks the validity of this conviction on four grounds: (1) he, as a naturopathic physician, was selectively prosecuted by the state in violation of the constitution; (2) the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his treatment of the patient caused the death; (3) the court which tried him lacked jurisdiction since the death occurred in Oregon; and (4) because of ineffective assistance of counsel he was deprived of the opportunity to have medical experts testify in his defense to the charge of manslaughter.

We note that the district court did, in fact, make findings and state its conclusions on the claim of selective prosecution. As for the merits of this claim, we find no evidence that Maxfield was singled out for prosecution by the State of Idaho. Maxfield is "required to show that the [state] selected [him] from a larger group of non-prosecuted alleged violators because of [his] exercise of a constitutional right." See United States v. Taylor, 693 F.2d 919, 923 (9th Cir.1982) (footnote omitted). "He must show that the selection was deliberately based on an unjustifiable standard." United States v. Wayte, 710 F.2d 1385, 1387 (9th Cir.1983). Naturopathic physicians in Idaho are the larger group of nonprosecuted alleged violators identified by Maxfield. At one point during the hearing on post-conviction relief, Maxfield testified as follows:

A. .... So therefore, I feel if I am arrested for practicing medicine without a license, they [naturopaths in Idaho] all should be.

Q. But you would agree with me that others, in fact, may have been prosecuted besides yourself?

A. Selective, yes.

By Maxfield's own testimony, therefore, he is not the only naturopath to have been prosecuted in Idaho. Simply because the state does not prosecute all similarly situated persons does not make out a case for unconstitutional selective prosecution. We hold Maxfield failed to carry his burden.

Second, we have already discussed Maxfield's contention, in our opinion on his appeal from the involuntary manslaughter conviction, that the state failed to prove a causative relationship between his treatment and the patient's death. See State v. Maxfield, 106 Idaho 206, 677 P.2d 519 (Ct.App.1984). We held that there was sufficient evidence to prove causation. We need not reiterate our reasoning here. Third, the venue of a prosecution for homicide is proper either in the county where the cause of death...