State v. Doe (2021-29) (In re Doe (2021-29))
| Docket Number | 48895 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Parties | In the Interest of: John Doe (2021-29), Juvenile Under Eighteen (18) Years. v. JOHN DOE (2021-29), Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF IDAHO, Petitioner-Respondent, |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan Brody, District Judge, and Mick D. Hodges, Magistrate.
Order of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court, affirming order finding probation violation, revoking probation, and directing execution of previously suspended sentences, reversed; and case remanded.
Parmenter Rivera LLP; Nathan D. Rivera, Blackfoot, for appellant.
Hon Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C McKinney, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
John Doe appeals from the district court's order, on intermediate appeal, affirming the magistrate court's order revoking probation and executing Doe's previously suspended sentence after finding Doe violated probation. Doe argues the district court erred by: (1) finding substantial evidence supported the magistrate court's determination that Doe violated probation; (2) finding the magistrate court properly revoked probation; and (3) affirming the magistrate court's execution of an excessive sentence. The magistrate court's finding that Doe violated his probation is not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the magistrate court abused its discretion in executing the previously suspended sentence. Consequently the district court's order affirming the magistrate court's order revoking probation and executing Doe's previously suspended sentence after finding Doe violated probation is reversed.
In June 2019, pursuant to a plea agreement, Doe pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101, and three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen (16) years of age, I.C. § 18-1508. The magistrate court ordered a commitment to the Department of Juvenile Corrections (Department) for an indeterminate amount of time, not to exceed Doe's nineteenth birthday, unless the Custody Review Board determined Doe should remain in the custody of the Department until Doe's twenty-first birthday. Upon release from the Department in June 2019, Doe was placed on probation for three years. As a term of probation, Doe was prohibited from entering Minidoka County and Cassia County ("Mini-Cassia") without notifying his probation officer.
In January 2020, a counselor at Minico High School in Minidoka County completed a written statement in which he stated "sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas [of 2019], to the best of my recollection, I observed [Doe] on our campus and specifically in the building." Doe had not received permission from his probation officer to enter Minidoka County during the time frame the counselor referenced. As a result, the State filed a probation violation against Doe alleging two violations. First, the State alleged that Doe violated Condition 8 of the standard terms of probation which, in relevant part, required Doe to [1] The State alleged Doe violated the condition by going to Minico High School between the dates of November 25, 2019, and December 25, 2019, "without the knowledge of his parents or his Probation Officer." Second, the State alleged that Doe violated a condition of the amended decree and order of disposition. That condition reads as follows: "[Doe] shall give a 48 hour notice to the Mini-Cassia Juvenile Probation Department BEFORE coming into either Minidoka or Cassia County." The State alleged Doe violated this condition because "This Probation Officer had no knowledge of [Doe] being in the area during this time and had no knowledge of [Doe] being at Minico High School, which he was restricted from being at."
The magistrate court held an evidentiary hearing on the allegations. At the hearing, the counselor testified that Doe had been a student at Minico High School and that prior to his alleged presence at the school in late 2019, the counselor had not seen Doe since January 2018. Initially, the counselor testified that Doe was at the high school "prior to Thanksgiving in 2019." The prosecutor then tried to clarify the date, asking, "maybe you had indicated on a prior occasion that it was sometime between Thanksgiving and Christmas." The counselor then testified, "Well, I know it was somewhere in there." During cross-examination, the counselor testified that he did not know the exact date he saw Doe but "it was either before Thanksgiving or right between Thanksgiving and Christmas." However, the counselor also acknowledged that due to either the aging process or an illness, his "memory isn't quite as sharp as it was."
The counselor also testified that he saw Doe standing in the hallway of the high school where he appeared to be waiting for someone or waiting to talk to the attendance secretary. The counselor testified that he distinctly remembered saying, "Hey, [Doe], how you doing?" and Doe said, "I'm good." When asked if there was any doubt in his mind that he saw Doe at the high school, the counselor answered, "No, there's no doubt." The counselor also testified that Doe's older brother, Jorge, had been a student at another high school where the counselor worked before he worked at Minico High School. The counselor testified that Doe and Jorge "are similar," but he had not seen Jorge for two or three years. However, the counselor acknowledged that in his written statement made in January 2020, he did not indicate that he addressed the person he saw by Doe's name, but he did not know why he did not include that in the written statement. In his written statement, the counselor also indicated that in order to confirm whether he saw Doe, the counselor spoke with the attendance secretary present the day Doe was alleged to be on campus. The counselor showed the attendance secretary a photo of Doe in an effort to identify him, but the attendance secretary did not recognize Doe. The secretary also did not remember Doe or why Doe would have been at the school.
Brandy Simmons, Doe's probation officer, testified that Doe was required to obtain permission from the probation office before entering the Mini-Cassia area and that Doe had requested and received permission on multiple occasions. Simmons testified that Doe did not request permission to go to the Mini-Cassia area or Minico High School at any time during November or December 2019. She was surprised, but unconcerned, by the allegation that Doe had been at the high school because Doe had been good about communicating with her and asking for permission to be in the Mini-Cassia area and had passed a polygraph examination about whether he had been at the high school. Simmons testified that aside from the alleged violation, Doe had completed all the terms and conditions of his probation and done well.
Bret Wright, a juvenile probation officer in Minidoka County, testified that Doe had taken two polygraph examinations and was specifically asked whether he had complied with all conditions of probation. Each time, Doe passed the examination. Wright also testified that when he asked Doe about the alleged violation, Doe adamantly denied ever being near Minico High School.
Jorge testified that on October 29, 2019, he went to Minico High School to pick up his cousin at his wife's request. Defense Exhibit 2, a copy of electronic messages between Jorge's cousin and Jorge's wife, supports this testimony. Jorge testified that while he was waiting for his cousin, he saw the counselor who asked him, "Hey, how is it going?" and Jorge responded, "Good." Jorge testified that the counselor asked what he was doing at the school, and Jorge explained that he was there to pick up his cousin. Jorge said that the counselor did not address him by a specific name. Jorge explained "it takes [the counselor] a while to remember who we are because he has so many students, so it takes him a while to remember our names." Jorge testified that every time he saw the counselor, the counselor would say "Hey, how is it going?" or "Hey, how you doing?" Jorge testified that if the counselor had addressed him by Doe's name, he would have corrected him. Jorge's fiancé and cousin testified, and their testimony corroborated Jorge's testimony and the electronic messages.
Doe testified that he understood the conditions of his probation and had sought permission from his probation officer every time he wanted to travel to the Mini-Cassia area, as required. Doe stated multiple times that he had not been at Minico High School or in the Mini-Cassia area without permission. During closing argument, Doe's counsel argued the counselor had mistaken Jorge for Doe. Doe's counsel further argued that the mistaken identity was the only evidentiary support for the probation violation allegations and that the counselor was not credible.
The magistrate court acknowledged that Doe and Jorge look similar but ultimately concluded Doe violated his probation. At a subsequent disposition hearing, the magistrate court found that Doe violated both terms of his probation as alleged, and the court revoked probation, and executed Doe's previously suspended detention time of 621 days. Doe appealed, arguing the magistrate court lacked substantial evidence to support finding a probation violation, abused its discretion by failing to cite the proper standard when revoking Doe's probation and executing his sentence, and abused its discretion by...
To continue reading
Request your trial