State v. Giddings

• Decision Date: 16 May 2022
• Docket Number: 48733
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREW DEWEY GIDDINGS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANDREW DEWEY GIDDINGS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 48733

Court of Appeals of Idaho

May 16, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett District Judge.

Judgment of conviction for forgery and grand theft, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GRATTON, JUDGE

Andrew Dewey Giddings appeals from his judgment of conviction for forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601; and grand theft, I.C. § 18-2403. Giddings challenges the district court's denial of his request to continue the probation violation disposition hearing which was made after his probation was revoked and original sentence had been executed. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Giddings pled guilty to forgery and grand theft. The district court sentenced him to a unified term of ten years with four years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following completion of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Giddings' sentence and placed him on probation. Thereafter, Giddings admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the district court ordered another period of retained jurisdiction, after which the court again suspended his sentence and placed him on probation.

The State filed a second motion for probation violation, alleging Giddings violated the terms of his probation by continuing to use drugs and failing to report for treatment. Giddings initially denied the allegations and the matter was set for an evidentiary hearing. The evidentiary hearing never occurred because Giddings requested to go directly to disposition during a status conference. At the hearing, Giddings first admitted the probation violations and then the district court proceeded to disposition. Ultimately, the district court revoked Giddings' probation and executed the underlying sentence. The district court then advised Giddings of his appellate rights and inquired if there were further matters. Giddings addressed the district court and expressed confusion regarding the ability to discuss the matter with his lawyer and the purpose of the hearing. A discussion ensued and Giddings requested a continuance which the district court denied.

Giddings timely appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the request to continue.

II. ANALYSIS

The decision to grant a motion for a continuance rests within the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Ransom, 124 Idaho 703, 706, 864 P.2d 149, 152 (1993). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).

Giddings argues that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his request for a continuance. Giddings contends that a comment made by the district court at the conclusion of the discussion in which Giddings requested a continuance indicates that the district court did not believe it still had jurisdiction and, therefore, lacked discretion to entertain the motion. At the conclusion of the status conference the following exchange occurred:

COURT: Anything else?

DEFENDANT: Your Honor?

COURT: Yes, Mr. Giddings.

DEFENDANT: I guess I don't understand what--the discussion that I had with [my counsel], I didn't understand what we were doing today.

COURT: -- sir?

DEFENDANT: I thought I was going to have ample opportunity to speak with him before we make any more decisions based on this case. I didn't know what we were doing. And I--I haven't even talked to him about what it means to admit.

I guess this was a status conference. I didn't know that it was--I guess I'm confused right now on what the purpose of this hearing was.

COURT: Well, we've had an admit/deny hearing in this matter, Mr. Giddings, where the Court went over your rights. You denied those twice. There was then an indication there was going to be a disposition hearing, and at such, the Court indicated that.

There was an oversight where we did not do the admissions and, like I said, so we went back and did the admissions. The Court had reviewed those rights before. And then we proceeded to disposition.

So, if you wish to appeal, you can. You have 42 days in which to do so.

DEFENDANT: But--

COURT: The Court has imposed the original sentence, given you credit for the time that you have served.

DEFENDANT: But--I'm sorry. Mr. [attorney] I thought we were going to speak more about this after court today.

ATTORNEY: Mr. Giddings, if you like, you can make an appointment with me. I don't want--

DEFENDANT: So--

ATTORNEY: -- to discuss our previous discussion in open court here. Okay?

DEFENDANT: Okay.

ATTORNEY: So if you would like to make an appointment with me, do so, but you have the right to appeal. That is 42 days, as the Court has ordered, so that time frame starts effective tomorrow.

DEFENDANT: Well, now can we just continue this court--can we just continue this court date out, because I guess I was very confused on what we're doing right now.

COURT: Where at this point, the Court has imposed the original sentence, then the Department of Corrections has jurisdiction. That will be the order of the court. We'll be in recess on this matter. You may be excused, Mr. Giddings. Thank you, sir.

Giddings argues that the district court's statement "Where at this point, the Court has imposed the original sentence, then the Department of Corrections has jurisdiction" indicates that the district court did not believe it could continue the matter. Giddings points out that prior case law establishes that the district court retains jurisdiction until the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) takes physical custody of the defendant. Thus, the district court failed to realize that it still had jurisdiction and, therefore, the discretion to continue the hearing since IDOC had not yet taken physical custody of Giddings. The State acknowledges that a district court retains jurisdiction until the defendant is placed in the physical custody of IDOC. State v. Williams, 126 Idaho 39, 43, 878 P.2d 213, 217 (Ct. App. 1994). The State does not dispute that Giddings was not yet in the physical custody of IDOC at the time he requested a continuance. Consequently, the district court still had jurisdiction and the discretion to grant or deny Giddings' request. ^[1]

Assuming arguendo, that the comment demonstrates...