State v. Easley

• Decision Date: 28 March 2014
• Docket Number: Nos. 39710,39711.,s. 39710
• Citation: State v. Easley, 322 P.3d 296, 156 Idaho 214 (Idaho 2014)
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Krystal Lynn EASLEY, Defendant–Appellant.

156 Idaho 214

322 P.3d 296

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Respondent,

v.Krystal Lynn EASLEY, Defendant–Appellant.

Nos. 39710

39711.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, December 2013 Term.

March 28, 2014.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, attorneys for appellant.Shawn F. Wilkerson argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorneys for respondent.Daphne Huang argued.

SCHROEDER, J., pro tem.

I.NATURE OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the district court's order revoking Krystal Easley's probation and this Court's partial denial of her request to augment the record with various transcripts to be created at the public's expense.The case also presents the issue of the prosecutor's refusal to consent to the district judge's desire to sentence Easley to mental health court and the district court's acquiescence in that refusal.

II.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In September of 2005, Krystal Easley was charged by Information with possession of a controlled substance.She entered an Alford¹ plea to possession of a controlled substance on November 28, 2005.The district court imposed a sentence of four years with two years fixed but suspended the sentence and placed Easley on probation.On March 6, 2007, the State alleged that Easley violated various terms of her probation.On September 17, 2007, Easley admitted to violating the terms of her probation for failure to stay in contact with her probation officer, absconding, failing to maintain employment, and failing to pay the costs of her supervision.The district court revoked Easley's probation and reinstated her original probation on October 29, 2007.

On June 30, 2010, the State filed a motion to revoke probation, alleging that Easley violated various terms of her probation.The State also charged Easley by Information with possession of a controlled substance.Both cases were treated as though they were consolidated.Easley pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance in the second case.She also admitted to violating the terms of her probation by changing her residence without permission, consuming methamphetamine, possessing methamphetamine, having contact with a prohibited person, and failing the pay the costs of her supervision.The district court imposed a concurrent unified sentence of seven years with three years fixed on the new charge, but the court retained jurisdiction.On February 22, 2010, on review of Easley's period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Easley's sentences in both cases and placed her on probation.

On April 21, 2011, the State filed a motion to revoke probation in both cases.Easley admitted to violating the terms of her probation for failing to obtain a substance use evaluation, failing to provide a drug test, changing her residence without permission, failing to make herself available for supervision, failing to report to her probation officer, and failing to complete community service.On November 22, 2011, the State filed a second motion to revoke probation in both cases.

Easley was in contact with the Twin Falls mental health court coordinator.Easley asserts that the mental health court coordinator determined that she would be a good candidate for mental health court.The prosecutor did not agree with the recommendation.The district court ruled that it did not possess the authority to place Easley into the mental health court program, because in Twin Falls Countythe prosecutor has an "absolute veto" over post-judgment eligibility for mental health court.On January 31, 2012, the district court revoked probation in both cases and executed the underlying sentences.However, the district courtsua sponte reduced Easley's sentence in the second case to a unified sentence of seven years with two years and six months fixed.The district court gave the following justification for reducing Easley's sentence:

I do that, not because people who abscond probation deserve a break, but I do believe there is a significant question about [Easley's] mental health to offer [her] an opportunity to hopefully get some treatment in the therapeutic community or otherwise and have an opportunity to parole out a half a year sooner.

Easley filed a notice of appeal in both cases on February 2, 2012.

Easley filed a motion to augment the record with various transcripts.The State objected in part to Easley's request for the transcripts.This Court entered an order granting Easley's request for two transcripts, but it denied her request for transcripts of the admit/deny hearing, the October 29, 2007, disposition hearing, and the February 22, 2011, rider review hearing.

Easley asserts this Court erred in denying her motion to augment the record in part.

III.ISSUES ON APPEAL

1.Whether this Court denied the defendant due process and equal protection when it denied in part her request to augment the record.

2.Whether the prosecutor's authority to prevent a district court from considering Easley for mental health court violates Idaho's Separation of Powers Doctrine.

3.Whether the prosecutor's authority to prevent a district court from considering Easley for mental health court violates the uniform judicial powers, procedures, and practices doctrine.

4.Whether the district court abused its discretion when it revoked the Easley's probation.

5.Whether the district court abused its discretion when it failed to further reduce the Easley's sentence sua sponte.

IV.STANDARD OF REVIEW

Appellate courts review constitutional challenges de novo.State v. Olson,138 Idaho 438, 440, 64 P.3d 967, 969(2003).On review of a district court's decision revoking probation, an appellate court considers (1) whether the defendant violated probation, and (2) whether the probation should be revoked or continued.State v. Sanchez,149 Idaho 102, 105, 233 P.3d 33, 36(2009).This Court will not disrupt the district court's decision revoking probation absent an abuse of discretion.Id.In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, this Court considers (1) whether the trial court understood the issue as discretionary; (2) whether the trial court acted within its discretionary scope and under applicable legal standards; and (3) whether the trial court exercised reason.State v. Miller,151 Idaho 828, 834, 264 P.3d 935, 941(2011).An appellate court conducts an independent review of the entire record to determine if the record supports the district court's decisions.State v. Hanington,148 Idaho 26, 28, 218 P.3d 5, 7(Ct.App.2009).

V.

THIS COURT DID NOT VIOLATE EASLEY'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION WHEN IT DENIED IN PART HER MOTION TO AUGMENT.

Easley argues that this Court's denial of her motion to augment the record denied her of due process and equal protection.She maintains that the requested transcripts are relevant to the issues of whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and not further reducing her sentence.

The State argues that Easley improperly raises this issue on the basis that a party challenging a denial of a motion to augment by the Supreme Court must file a renewed motion to augment.Nonetheless, the State argues that the Supreme Court did not err in denying Easley's motion to augment, because the district court was only required to consider those elements that were germane to the probation revocation decision.

1.The issue is properly before the Supreme Court for consideration.

This Court has the authority to review whether it erred in denying Easley's motion to augment.The Idaho Court of Appeals decision in State v. Morgan,153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838(Ct.App.2012) is not applicable to this Court's authority to review its own process and determine if it erred.

2.This Court did not err in denying in part Easley's motion to augment.

Both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionandArticle 1 Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant due process of law.The Idaho Supreme Court applies the United States Supreme Court's standard for interpreting the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution to Article 1, Section 13 of the Idaho Constitution.Maresh v. State Dep't of Health & Welfare,132 Idaho 221, 227, 970 P.2d 14, 20(1998).Idaho Code § 1–1105(2) provides that an indigent criminal defendant on appeal is entitled to procure necessary transcripts at the county's expense.When a state grants appellate review to a criminal defendant, it cannot do so in a way that discriminates on the basis of poverty.Griffin v. Illinois,351 U.S. 12, 18, 76 S.Ct. 585, 590, 100 L.Ed. 891, 898–99(1956).The State is not required to purchase a transcript in every case where a defendant cannot afford the transcript if adequate and effective alternate means for appellate review are made available to indigent defendants.Id.;see alsoGardner v. State,91 Idaho 909, 913, 435 P.2d 249, 253(1967)("A state must furnish a transcript at no cost to an indigent defendant on appeal.")The U.S. Supreme Court clarified what constitutes an adequate alternative to a transcript:

Alternative methods of reporting trial proceedings are permissible if they place before the appellate court an equivalent report of the events at trial from which the appellant's contentions arise....Moreover, part or all of the stenographic transcript in certain cases will not be germane to consideration of the appeal, and a State will not be required to expend its funds unnecessarily in such circumstances ...[T]he fact that an appellant with funds may choose to waste his money by unnecessarily including in the record all of the transcript does not mean that the State must waste its funds by providing what is unnecessary for adequate appellate review.In all cases the duty of the State is to provide the indigent as adequate and effective an appellate review as that given appellants with funds—the State must provide the indigent defendant with means of presenting his

...