State v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 24 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 42516.,42516. |
| Citation | 355 P.3d 635,159 Idaho 6 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Andrew GARCIA, Defendant–Respondent. |
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for appellant.
Ada County Public Defender's Office, Boise, for respondent.
ON THE BRIEFS
This is a companion case to the case of State v. Juarez, Docket No. 42476. Andrew Garcia was ordered to make certain payments in a juvenile proceeding. After he failed to make those payments, the State filed a motion for contempt. The magistrate court dismissed the motion, concluding that it did not have jurisdiction because Garcia was over twenty-one and juvenile court jurisdiction was terminated by operation of Idaho Code section 20–507. The State appealed and the district court affirmed the magistrate court's order. The State appeals the decision of the district court.
The genesis of this appeal is found in juvenile court proceedings against Garcia. On May 12, 2008, Garcia admitted to committing an offense that would have been a misdemeanor if he were an adult. He was ordered to pay court costs of $20.00. On April 28, 2009, after Garcia admitted to committing another offense and a probation violation, he was ordered to pay court costs, probation fees, and community service fees. On May 10, 2010, Garcia admitted to committing another offense and was once again ordered to pay court costs and probation supervision fees.
On May 14, 2013, June 6, 2013, and June 7, 2013, when Garcia was twenty years old, the State filed identical motions for contempt in the three juvenile court cases.1 The State alleged that as of December 20, 2012, Garcia owed a balance of $537.80 and that Garcia's last payment was made on March 3, 2010. A show cause hearing was scheduled for January 22, 2014. The magistrate judge opened the hearing with the following observations:
On January 27, 2014, the magistrate judge entered an order dismissing the State's motion for contempt.
The State asked the trial court to reconsider its decision. The court denied the motion without hearing and the State appealed to the district court. The district court affirmed, concluding, In Juarez, the district court affirmed the magistrate court's dismissal of the State's motion for contempt, concluding that the court lost jurisdiction once the former juvenile turned twenty-one. The district court reasoned that the court's jurisdiction was initially conveyed by operation of Idaho Code section 20–505 and then withdrawn by operation of Idaho Code section 20–507.
The State timely appealed from the district court's decision affirming the magistrate court's order dismissing the motion for contempt.
When this Court reviews the decision of a district court sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from a magistrate court, this Court directly reviews the district court's decision. Pelayo v. Pelayo, 154 Idaho 855, 859, 303 P.3d 214, 218 (2013). To determine whether the district court erred in affirming the decision of the juvenile court, this Court reviews the juvenile court's "record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings." Id. at 858, 303 P.3d at 217 (quoting Bailey v. Bailey, 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012) ).
Additionally, "[t]his Court freely reviews the interpretation of a statute and its application to the facts." St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Ada Cnty., 146 Idaho 753, 755, 203 P.3d 683, 685 (2009) (citing State v. Yzaguirre, 144 Idaho 471, 474, 163 P.3d 1183, 1186 (2007) ). "Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law ... over which appellate courts exercise free review." State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755, 757, 101 P.3d 699, 701 (2004) (citation omitted).
The primary issue presented by this appeal is whether Idaho Code section 20–507 bars contempt proceedings against former juveniles who have turned twenty-one. However, before we reach that question, we address Garcia's claim that the district court's decision should be affirmed because the magistrate court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
Garcia contends that Idaho Code section 20–507 stripped the trial court of personal jurisdiction over him and therefore the magistrate court correctly dismissed the State's motion for contempt. The State responds that Garcia's unqualified appearance before the court resulted in the waiver of any claim that the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
"In order to properly proceed," against a defendant, a court requires "both personal and subject-matter jurisdiction...." State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 228, 91 P.3d 1127, 1132 (2004). The distinction between personal and subject-matter jurisdiction is important because parties cannot waive subject-matter jurisdiction, and it may be raised at any time, while personal jurisdiction may be waived. Id. at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131.
Personal jurisdiction refers to the court's authority to adjudicate the claim as to the person. That a court has "jurisdiction of a party" means either that a party has appeared generally and submitted to the jurisdiction, has otherwise waived service of process, or that process has properly issued and been served on such party.
Hooper v. State, 150 Idaho 497, 500, 248 P.3d 748, 751 (2011) (quoting Rogers, 140 Idaho at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131 ). Thus, courts acquire personal jurisdiction when the defendant initially appears before the court on a complaint or indictment. Rogers, 140 Idaho at 228, 91 P.3d at 1132. Here, when Garcia appeared before the magistrate court to answer the allegations in the juvenile proceedings, the court acquired the personal jurisdiction over him that was needed to enter valid orders that could be enforced by contempt. Andre v. Morrow, 106 Idaho 455, 463, 680 P.2d 1355, 1363 (1984) ().
A defect in subject matter jurisdiction, however, cannot be waived and may be raised at any time. Rogers, 140 Idaho at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131. This Court has explained subject matter jurisdiction as follows:
"Jurisdiction over the subject matter" has been variously defined as referring to (1) the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought; (2) the class of cases to which the particular one belongs and the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought; (3) the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular one belongs; (4) both the class of cases and the particular subject matter involved; and (5) the competency of the court to hear and decide the case. However, subject matter jurisdiction does not depend on the particular parties in the case or on the manner in which they have stated their claims, nor does it depend on the correctness of any decision made by the court. Also, the location of a transaction or controversy usually does not determine subject matter jurisdiction.
Id. at 227–28, 91 P.3d at 1131–32 (quoting 20 Am.Jur.2d Courts § 70 (1995) ); see also Black's Law Dictionary 931 (9th ed. 2009) (defining subject matter jurisdiction as "jurisdiction over the nature of the case and the type of relief sought; the extent to which a court can rule on the conduct of persons or the status of things.").
The central question in this case is one of subject matter jurisdiction. Idaho Code section 20–505 confers "exclusive, original jurisdiction" to the court over juveniles in cases involving alleged acts or omissions identified in the statute. In Zamora v. State, this Court considered a predecessor to Idaho Code section 20–505 when deciding whether the juvenile court had original jurisdiction in a case where a seventeen year old was charged with aggravated DUI and leaving the scene of an injury accident. 123 Idaho 192, 193–94, 846 P.2d 194, 195–96 (1992). As the alleged offenses were felonies, we concluded that the juvenile court had original jurisdiction over the offenses allegedly committed by the defendant. Id. at 194, 846 P.2d at 196. Although we did not explicitly distinguish whether the juvenile court's "exclusive, original jurisdiction" was personal or subject matter, our focus on the allegations against the defendant, rather than the defendant's relation to the court, clearly demonstrated that this Court was deciding a question of subject matter jurisdiction. For this reason, we conclude that Garcia has incorrectly characterized the question before us as one of personal jurisdiction and we turn our attention to the question whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to decide the State's motion for contempt.
To answer the question presented in this appeal, we must consider the source of the court's contempt powers. Garcia contends that the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider the State's motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial