State v. Boren
| Decision Date | 17 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 41115.,41115. |
| Citation | 328 P.3d 478,156 Idaho 498 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Bob Lester BOREN, a/k/a Bobby Lee Boren, Defendant–Appellant. |
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Jason C. Pintler argued.
Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Jessica M. Lorello argued.
Bob Lester Boren appeals from the judgment of conviction entered upon his conditional guilty plea to unlawful possession of a firearm. Boren claims that the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the charge. We affirm.
On July 15, 2011, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Boren's home in Canyon County. During the search of Boren's bedroom, the officers discovered a .22 semi-automatic pistol and a .22 rifle. Boren was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of Idaho Code § 18–3316. That statute makes it a felony for any person who has been convicted of a felony to own, purchase, or possess a firearm. I.C. § 18–3316(1). Boren had previously been convicted of two felonies: a 1984 conviction in Oregon for delivery of a controlled substance and a 1988 conviction in Nevada for possession of a controlled substance for purpose of sale. The prohibition in Idaho Code § 18–3316(1) applies to persons convicted of felonies in other states. I.C. § 18–3316(2).
Boren filed a motion to dismiss in district court, arguing that his two prior felony convictions could not be used to support the unlawful possession of a firearm charge because his right to bear arms had been restored under Idaho Code § 18–310. The district court denied Boren's motion, finding that the statute did not operate to restore his gun rights. Boren then entered a conditional guilty plea and reserved the right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss. The district court imposed a unified three-year sentence with one year fixed, but suspended the sentence and placed Boren on probation for a three-year period. Boren timely appealed. The Court of Appeals initially heard the case and vacated Boren's conviction. This Court granted the State's petition for review.
The only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in denying Boren's motion to dismiss.
"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). Statutory interpretation is a question of law over which the Court exercises free review. Albee v. Judy, 136 Idaho 226, 230, 31 P.3d 248, 252 (2001).
Boren was convicted for violating Idaho Code § 18–3316(1), which prohibits "[a] person who previously has been convicted of a felony" from purchasing, owning, possessing, or having any firearm under his custody or control. However, Boren asserts that this prohibition did not apply to him based on subsection (4) of the statute. Subsection (4) provides:
Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a person whose conviction has been nullified by expungement, pardon, setting aside the conviction or other comparable procedure by the jurisdiction where the felony conviction occurred; or whose civil right to bear arms either specifically or in combination with other civil rights has been restored by any other provision of Idaho law.
Boren does not claim that his right to bear arms was restored by the law of either Nevada or Oregon, where his out-of-state felony convictions occurred. Rather, he claims that his right to bear arms was restored pursuant to Idaho Code § 18–310. That statute reads in pertinent part:
I.C. § 18–310(2) (emphasis added).
The district court found that "by its express language, [Idaho Code] section 18–310(4) does not operate to restore Boren's right to bear arms after final discharge from the alleged out-of-state convictions." Boren argues that the district court erred in its interpretation of the statute. He points out that his out-of-state convictions for drug offenses were prior to 1991, so paragraph (kk) of subsection (2) automatically restored his right to bear arms when he completed his probation for the out-of-state felonies. However, subsection (2) only applies to "a person convicted of any Idaho felony." Subsection (4) deals with persons convicted of out-of-state felonies. While the second sentence of subsection (4) does make reference to subsection (2), it does not provide for the restoration of any right whatsoever. The second sentence says that individuals convicted of out-of-state felonies "shall not have the right restored." It is not clear what the language following "firearm" means, but what is absolutely certain is that the second sentence does not provide for the restoration of any right of any nature.2 If the "not" had not been written into the second sentence, Boren might have better ground upon which to base his argument.
Problematic for Boren is the fact that Idaho Code § 18–3316(1) criminalizes a convicted felon's possession of a firearm, unless that right has been affirmatively restored by Idaho law. I.C. § 18–3316(4). No specific provision in Idaho's statutory framework automatically restores a person's right to bear arms if that person was convicted of an out-of-state felony.3...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boren v. State
...not provide for the restoration of any right or any nature" for persons convicted of out-of-state felonies. State v. Boren, 156 Idaho 498, 499-500, 328 P.3d 478, 479-80 (2014). Following his direct appeal, Boren filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging his trial counsel was inef......
-
State v. Gibson
...Statutory interpretation is a question of law over which the Court exercises free 431 P.3d 257164 Idaho 422 review. State v. Boren , 156 Idaho 498, 499, 328 P.3d 478, 479 (2014).III. ANALYSISA. The district court erred when it denied Luis's motion because the cash deposit should have been e......
-
State v. Gibson, Docket No. 45449
...STANDARD OF REVIEW Statutory interpretation is a question of law over which the Court exercises free 431 P.3d 257review. State v. Boren , 156 Idaho 498, 499, 328 P.3d 478, 479 (2014).III. ANALYSISA. The district court erred when it denied Luis’s motion because the cash deposit should have b......
-
State v. Boren, 41115.
...328 P.3d 478STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent,v.Bob Lester BOREN, a/k/a Bobby Lee Boren, Defendant–Appellant.No. 41115.Supreme Court of Idaho,Boise, May 2014 Term.June 17, Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Jason C. Pintler argued.Honorable Lawrence G.......