State v. Canales
| Decision Date | 02 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 49331 |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER RAY CANALES, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.
Order revoking probation and directing execution of previously suspended sentence, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L Westerfield, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Christopher Ray Canales appeals from the district court's order revoking his probation and executing his previously suspended sentence. Canales argues the district court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation is not supported by substantial and competent evidence and, alternatively, the court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Because the district court did not err in finding Canales violated the terms of his probation or abused its discretion in revoking his probation, the order revoking Canales' probation and executing his previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
In 2011, Canales pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence (DUI), third offense, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(5). The district court imposed a unified term of five years, with three years determinate, but after a retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Canales on probation for five years.
In 2013, the State filed a report of probation violation. Canales admitted to violating the terms of his probation by getting arrested for possession of marijuana and driving without privileges and by using marijuana on the same date. The district court found Canales violated the terms and conditions of his probation and continued him on probation for five years with additional terms. In 2017, the State filed a report of probation violation alleging Canales violated the terms of his probation by being charged with injury to a child, consuming alcohol, and failing to pay fines, fees, restitution, and costs of his supervision. Canales admitted to the violations; the district court found Canales violated the terms of his probation and continued him on probation for an additional three years.
In 2020, the State filed another report of probation violation (initial report), alleging Canales violated the terms of his probation by being cited in Montana for possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, operating a car without liability insurance, and careless driving. The State additionally alleged Canales violated the terms of his probation by operating a car without an interlock device. Prior to a hearing on the alleged violations, the State filed an addendum to the probation violation report (addendum report), alleging Canales violated the terms of his probation by being cited in Bingham County, Idaho, for driving under the influence, possession of drug paraphernalia, driving too closely, and failing to provide proof of insurance. The State additionally alleged Canales violated the terms of his probation by consuming alcohol and failing to engage in treatment, obtain permission prior to changing his residence, report to his probation officer, and provide proof of installation of an interlock device.
The district court held a hearing on the alleged probation violations via Zoom. After discussion with Canales, Canales' counsel explained Canales would admit to the first allegation in the addendum report (the first offense DUI and the two traffic infractions), as well as the allegations that he failed to engage in treatment and failed to report to his probation officer on August 2. For the remaining allegations, Canales would admit to two of the allegations in part and deny the remaining three allegations. The State indicated it would proceed on the allegations Canales agreed to admit and withdraw the remaining allegations.
The district court read the first probation allegation in the addendum report and asked Canales whether he admitted or denied the allegation. Canales stated, "I know for sure I got a first-offense DUI," but he believed he "took care of" the two traffic infractions. While the district court and Canales were discussing the traffic infractions, the Zoom connection was compromised so the court continued the hearing to a later date indicating it would take the admissions at that time. Before the next hearing, the State filed another addendum (second addendum report) to the report of violation.
At the subsequent hearing, the district court proceeded to disposition and did not take Canales' admissions; neither the State nor Canales' trial counsel objected. The district court declined to address or consider the second addendum report at the disposition hearing. The district court stated, to which Canales responded, "Yes, sir." The district court continued, noting Canales had not performed well while on probation and had been on probation for the maximum period of time authorized by law. Accordingly, the district court found that if it wanted to impose any consequences as a result of Canales' behavior during probation, its only choice was to revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence. The district court entered an order revoking Canales' probation and executing the previously suspended sentence. Canales timely appeals.
Review of a probation revocation proceeding involves a two-step analysis. State v. Garner, 161 Idaho 708, 710, 390 P.3d 434, 436 (2017). We first determine whether the terms of probation have been violated. Id. Because a trial court may revoke probation only upon evidence that the probationer has violated probation, a court's finding that a violation has been proved will be upheld on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. State v. Knutsen, 138 Idaho 918, 923, 71 P.3d 1065, 1070 (Ct. App. 2003). The State bears the burden of providing satisfactory proof of a violation, though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. State v. Edelblute, 91 Idaho 469, 480, 424 P.2d 739, 750 (1967).
If substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding of a probation violation, we then determine whether the violation justifies revocation of the probation. Garner, 161 Idaho at 710, 390 P.3d at 436. With regard to this second step, the decision whether to revoke a defendant's probation for a violation is within the discretion of the trial court. Knutsen, 138 Idaho at 923, 71 P.3d at 1070. Thus, we review a trial court's decision to revoke probation under an abuse of discretion standard. Id. When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).
Canales alleges the district court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation is not supported by substantial and competent evidence because the court never "formally accepted" his admission to a probation violation. Alternatively, Canales argues the district court abused its discretion when it revoked his probation and executed the underlying sentence. In response, the State contends the district court did not err.
Canales alleges the district court's finding that he violated the terms of his probation is not supported by substantial and competent evidence because the court never "formally accepted" his admission to a probation violation. We disagree.
Idaho Criminal Rule 33(f) prohibits a court from revoking probation "unless there is an admission by the defendant or a finding by the court, following a hearing, that the defendant willfully violated a condition of probation." However, nothing in I.C.R. 33(f) requires a trial court to "formally accept" a defendant's admission to a probation violation in order for the court's finding of a probation violation to be supported by substantial and competent evidence, and Canales does not cite to any authority holding as such in support of this argument.
While it is true that in other contexts a trial court provides a colloquy to ensure that a defendant's guilty plea meets various constitutional standards, in this case Canales explicitly declines to pursue a constitutional claim on appeal or assert that his probation violation admission was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Thus, while whether the district court formally accepted Canales' admission would be relevant to a due process argument, because Canales expressly declines to make a due process argument on appeal, we decline to import a due process analysis into the "substantial evidence" standard set forth above.
Instead we will address whether there is substantial evidence supporting the district court's conclusion that Canales admitted to violating a term of his probation. "[S]ubstantial and competent evidence exists if there is evidence in the record that a reasonable trier of fact could accept and rely upon in making the factual finding challenged on appeal." State v. Ish, 166 Idaho 492, 509, 461...
To continue reading
Request your trial