State v. Collins

• Decision Date: 31 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 33346.,33346.
• Citation: 144 Idaho 408,162 P.3d 787
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Matthew Scott COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

162 P.3d 787

144 Idaho 408

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Matthew Scott COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 33346.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

May 31, 2007.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PERRY, Chief Judge.

In this case we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion by failing to sua sponte order a psychological evaluation of Collins prior to the imposition of sentence or in refusing to grant probation following a period of retained jurisdiction. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of conviction but vacate Collins's sentence and remand.

After his arrest for deliberately crashing a stolen vehicle, Matthew Scott Collins pled guilty to one count of felony malicious injury to property, I.C. § 18-7001(2)(a), and one count of misdemeanor eluding a peace officer, I.C. § 49-1404(1). Following his plea, Collins was sentenced to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years for felony malicious injury to property and a term of 180 days of confinement for misdemeanor eluding a peace officer. Collins's sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The district court retained jurisdiction for 180 days, and Collins was sent to participate in the rider program at the North Idaho Correctional Institution (NICI).¹

After Collins completed evaluation at NICI, the jurisdictional review committee recommended relinquishment of jurisdiction. The district court thereafter relinquished jurisdiction. Collins appeals. Collins asserts that the district court erred by failing to sua sponte order a psychological evaluation prior to the imposition of his sentence. Collins also argues the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction. Because we vacate Collins's sentence and remand for resentencing, we do not reach the district court's decision to relinquish jurisdiction.

The determination whether to obtain a psychological evaluation lies within the sentencing court's discretion. I.C. § 19-2522(1); I.C.R. 32(d); State v. Jones, 132 Idaho 439, 442, 974 P.2d 85, 88 (Ct.App.1999). The legal standards governing the court's decision whether to order a psychological evaluation and report are contained in I.C. § 19-2522. Pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522(1), if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown, the sentencing court must appoint a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report upon the defendant's mental condition. The mental condition of a defendant can be a significant factor at sentencing when it may be an underlying factor in the crime at issue, for example, when the actions of the defendant are contrary to his or her history and character. See State v. French, 95 Idaho 853, 855, 522 P.2d 61, 63 (1974); State v. McFarland, 125 Idaho 876, 879, 876 P.2d 158, 161 (Ct.App.1994). A court-ordered psychological evaluation can assist the sentencing court in assessing the defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the offense charged. See I.C. § 19-2523(1)(f). The evaluation can also aid the sentencing court in determining whether to authorize psychological treatment during a defendant's confinement or probation. See I.C. § 19-2523(2).

We will uphold the district court's failure to order a psychological evaluation if the record supports a finding that there was no reason to believe a defendant's mental condition would be a significant factor at sentencing or if the information already before the court adequately meets the requirements of I.C. § 19-2522(3). McFarland, 125 Idaho at 879, 876 P.2d at 161. Where a defendant fails to request a psychological evaluation or object to the PSI on the ground that an evaluation has not been performed, the defendant must demonstrate that by failing to order a psychological evaluation the sentencing court manifestly disregarded the provisions of I.C.R. 32. Jones, 132 Idaho at 442, 974 P.2d at 88. In those instances where either this Court or our Supreme Court has found error in the district court's failure to order a psychological evaluation, we have relied upon information omitted from, or contained within, a presentence investigation report (PSI) to identify the need for a psychological evaluation. Id.

The events leading to Collins's criminal activity began with an argument with his mother at her home wherein he vocalized his intent to commit suicide and brandished an unloaded firearm to that end. Unable to find ammunition for the firearm, Collins left the house,...