State v. Fowler
| Citation | 105 Idaho 642,671 P.2d 1105 |
| Decision Date | 25 October 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 14533,14533 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Daniel Lewis FOWLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Idaho |
Owen L. Knowlton, Lewiston, for defendant-appellant.
Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Myrna A.I. Stahman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
Following a preliminary hearing, Daniel Fowler entered a plea of guilty to first degree burglary. He was sentenced to a fixed term of fifteen years in the custody of the State Board of Correction. On appeal, he raises four issues. First, he contends the state should not have been allowed to amend the charges against him, during the preliminary hearing, by adding the charge to which he ultimately pled guilty. Second, he argues the district court erred in denying a motion, made before the plea, to suppress as evidence certain statements made by him to the police after his arrest. Third, he claims he was denied a proper presentence investigation because it included no psychiatric or psychological report concerning his mental condition at the time of sentencing. Finally, he contends that his sentence was excessive, amounting to an abuse of discretion by the district court. We hold that no reversible error occurred, and affirm.
Fowler was arrested for the burglary of an electronics business. Following his arrest, and after having been advised of his rights, Fowler made statements to the police which implicated him in the burglary of a second business, a restaurant. However, he was not charged with the restaurant burglary at that time.
Later, during his preliminary hearing involving the burglary of the electronics business and after evidence was introduced concerning the restaurant burglary, the prosecutor was granted leave by the presiding magistrate to amend the state's complaint to charge Fowler with the burglary of the restaurant. At the conclusion of the preliminary hearing Fowler was bound over to district court for trial on both charges. In district court, Fowler moved to suppress the statements he had made to the police. The motion was denied. He thereafter pled guilty to the restaurant burglary, in exchange for a dismissal of the charge concerning the electronics business and the agreement of the prosecutor not to file an assault charge arising from an incident while Fowler was in jail.
Fowler argues that the magistrate committed prejudicial error in letting the state amend the complaint against him--to include the restaurant burglary charge--during the course of the preliminary hearing. However, we hold that Fowler's plea of guilty to that new charge waived his right to contest the preliminary hearing procedure. The purpose of a preliminary hearing is to determine whether there is probable cause to require the accused to stand trial. It is well settled that a valid plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly given, waives all non-jurisdictional defects and defenses, whether constitutional or statutory, in prior proceedings. State v. Coffin, 104 Idaho 543, 661 P.2d 328 (1983), citing State v. Tipton, 99 Idaho 670, 673, 587 P.2d 305, 308 (1978) and Clark v. State, 92 Idaho 827, 832, 452 P.2d 54, 59 (1969). Here Fowler does not attack the entry and acceptance of his plea. His plea of guilty to the restaurant burglary therefore constituted a waiver of the procedure to determine probable cause, just as if he had waived the preliminary hearing itself, on that charge.
Likewise, Fowler's plea waived any challenge to the order denying his motion to suppress statements made to the police following his arrest. Once his plea was accepted, the admissibility of his statements became irrelevant. This issue affords no basis to disturb the judgment of conviction. State v. Mallery, 105 Idaho 352, 670 P.2d 57 (Ct.App., 1983).
Fowler next submits that he was denied a proper presentence investigation because no current psychological examination had been made or reported. 1 Under I.C.R. 32(b)(10), a psychological examination is not required in a presentence investigation; however, it can be recommended, "where appropriate." At his sentencing hearing, Fowler did not raise any issue concerning the absence of such an examination or report. Under these circumstances, the issue will not be reviewed where it is raised for the first time, on appeal. Holmes v. State, 104 Idaho 312, 658 P.2d 983 (Ct.App.1983); State v. Bylama, 103 Idaho 472, 649 P.2d 1228 (Ct.App.1982).
Finally, Fowler asks that we review his sentence. The fixed term of fifteen years does not allow parole. See I.C. § 19-2513A; State v. Rawson, 100 Idaho 308...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rodriguez
...of guilty, the question of whether the confession would have been admissible at trial is no longer relevant. See also State v. Fowler, 105 Idaho 642, 671 P.2d 1105 Had Rodriguez wanted to preserve his right to challenge the district court's ruling on the motion to suppress, he could have el......
-
Noel v. State
...Noel to withdraw his guilty plea. WALTERS, C.J., and BURNETT, J., concur. 1 The state misreads our opinion in State v. Fowler, 105 Idaho 642, 671 P.2d 1105 (Ct.App.1983), as indicating that an invalid waiver of the preliminary hearing is not jurisdictional. In that case the waiver was of de......
-
Bailey v. Ewing
... ... Mat-Su/Blackard/Stephan & Sons v. State, 647 P.2d 1101 (Alaska 1982); Shrum v. Zeltwanger, 559 P.2d 1384 (Wyo.1977). Some courts require the parties to have the same misconception about ... ...
-
Fowler v. State
...BURNETT, J., concur. 1 Fowler also appealed directly from the judgment of conviction raising several issues. See State v. Fowler, 105 Idaho 642, 671 P.2d 1105 (Ct.App.1983). Our opinion affirming the judgment of conviction was issued after the district judge denied relief to Fowler in this ......