State v. Clapp

Decision Date23 November 2022
Docket Number49114
PartiesSTATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYLER SHAWN CLAPP, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace District Judge.

Order of the district court denying motions to discharge defendant or amend judgment, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GRATTON, JUDGE

Tyler Shawn Clapp was placed on probation after pleading guilty to felony driving under the influence (DUI). Idaho Code § 18-8004. After Clapp's probation ended, he filed two pro se motions under I.C. § 19-2604 requesting that his case be dismissed, or the conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. The district court denied the motions. Clapp appeals from that order arguing that the district court erred in concluding Clapp was precluded from obtaining relief under I.C. § 192604(2). For the reasons below, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Clapp pled guilty to felony DUI and concealing a dangerous weapon. I.C. §§ 18-8004, 183302. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years with two years determinate and retained jurisdiction. At the time of his conviction in this case, Clapp was on probation in a 1999 case for aiding and abetting burglary. Within days after sentencing in this case and before he could begin to serve his retained jurisdiction in this case, Clapp's probation in the burglary case was revoked, and his sentence executed due to numerous probation violations. Thereafter, on January 13, 2004, Clapp's sentence in this case was suspended, and he was placed on probation for a period of four years. During this probation, Clapp never admitted to, nor did the district court ever find, a violation of the conditions of his probation in this case.

Upon completion of probation, Clapp moved the district court for dismissal of his case, which was denied because of the overlap of probation in this case with Clapp's sentence imposed after probation violations in an unrelated case. That denial was without prejudice. Clapp filed a renewed motion ten years later under I.C. § 19-2604(1), which was denied because that section did not apply to Clapp's case. This Court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion, holding that I.C. § 19-2604(1) did not apply. State v. Clapp, Docket No. 48049 (Idaho Ct. App. July 8, 2021) (unpublished).

Thereafter, and in regard to this appeal, Clapp filed two pro se motions under I.C. § 192604 seeking to have his case dismissed or the conviction reduced to a misdemeanor. The district court considered the motions as a request for relief under I.C. § 19-2604(2). The district court denied Clapp's motions after considering Clapp's actions prior to, during, and following his probation. Clapp timely appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The granting of a motion to amend a judgment of conviction pursuant to I.C. § 19-2604(2) rests within the discretion of the district court. State v. Shock, 133 Idaho 753, 754, 992 P.2d 202, 203 (Ct. App. 1999). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly erceived 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).

III. ANALYSIS

Clapp argues that the district court erred by considering information outside of the current case in determining he was not eligible for relief under I.C. § 19-2604(2)(a). The State argues the district court properly denied Clapp's motions and Clapp failed to show reversible error.

Clapp's motions are governed by I.C. § 19-2604(2)(a), which provides:

(2) If sentence has been imposed but suspended for any period during the first three hundred sixty-five (365) days of a sentence to the custody of the state board of correction, and the defendant placed upon probation as provided in subsection 4. of section 19-2601 or 19-2601A, Idaho Code, upon application of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney, or upon the court's own motion, and upon satisfactory showing that:
(a) The court did not find, and the defendant did not admit, in any probation violation proceeding that the defendant violated any of the terms or conditions of probation; ....
the court may amend the judgment of conviction from a term in the custody of the state board of correction to "confinement in a penal facility" for the number of days served prior to suspension, and the amended judgment may be deemed to be a misdemeanor conviction.

Clapp contends, and it is undisputed, that he did not admit and the district court did not find any probation violations in this case. Therefore, Clapp asserts that he is eligible for relief under I.C. § 19-2604(2) and the district court erred by holding otherwise. Specifically, Clapp argues that the district court erroneously relied on his probation violations and revocation of probation in the burglary case, which occurred before his probation in this case, and also relied on new criminal charges which occurred after his probation in this case, to determine that he did not meet the eligibility requirements of I.C. § 19-2604(2)(a).

In Shock, 133 Idaho at 755, 992 P.2d at 204, this Court held that there are certain prerequisites in the statute that must be satisfied before a court may exercise its discretion to amend the judgment of conviction. In State v. Schwartz, 139 Idaho 360, 362-63, 79 P.3d 719, 721-22 (2003), the Court stated that subsection (2) only applies to defendants placed on probation after a period of retained jurisdiction and, further, that only defendants who complete a period of probation without admitting and without the trial court finding a probation violation "regarding the charge at issue" may seek relief under subsection (2). Specifically, the Court explained:

The statute in this case is clear. The defendant must have "at all times complied with the terms of his probation." The phrase "at all times" means just that. A defendant who has at any time failed to do what he or she was required to do while on probation in a particular case has not at all times complied with the terms and conditions of his or probation in that case.

Id. at 362, 79 P.3d 721 (emphasis added). Here, the State does not argue that a trial court may consider conduct and occurrences in other cases in its evaluation of a defendant's eligibility for relief under I.C. § 19-2604(2). Therefore, we are not asked to decide or further hold that the analysis is limited to admission and/or finding of a probation violation solely in the case at issue.[1]Therefore, we assume without deciding that the district court erred in holding that "Defendant has not satisfied the pre-requisites required under Idaho Code section 19-1604(2) that would allow the Court to consider amending his Judgment of Conviction in this case from a felony to a misdemeanor."

The State contends that the district court, despite finding that the prerequisites of the statute had not been met alternatively ruled on the merits of the motion to amend and properly denied the motion. Clapp contends that the State is attempting to recast the district court's ruling as alternative holdings when, in fact, the ruling was limited to the prerequisites of the statute. Both the State and Clapp acknowledge that once the prerequisites...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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