State v. Gould
| Decision Date | 06 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 394,Docket No. 42051 |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRANDON GRANT GOULD, Defendant-Appellant. |
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.
Order denying motion for correction of illegal sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Nicole L. Schafer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
____________________
Brandon Grant Gould was convicted of lewd conduct with a minor. In this appeal, he argues that the charging indictment was deficient because it did not list the names of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury, as required by statute. He asserts that this error was jurisdictional, and therefore his conviction should be vacated.
Gould was convicted of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Gould v. State, Docket No. 35797 (Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2009) (unpublished).
Gould subsequently filed a motion for correction of an illegal sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35. In that motion, he argued that because of deficiencies in the chargingdocument, an amended indictment, the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the criminal case. He contended, among other things, that because the indictment did not contain "the names of the witnesses examined before the grand jury" as required by a statute and criminal rule, the district court never acquired subject matter jurisdiction.
The district court agreed that the indictment failed to comply with the relevant statute and rule, but held that this deficiency did not invalidate the judgment. Gould appeals.
Both Idaho Code § 19-14041 and I.C.R. 6.62 require that an indictment include the names of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. The amended indictment in which Gould was charged does not contain a list of names. Accordingly, the indictment was deficient. But that determination is insufficient to warrant the relief sought by Gould. Generally, complaints regarding defects in an indictment must be raised prior to trial, I.C.R. 12(b)(2), and collateral attacks on a conviction generally may not be made through an I.C.R. 35 motion. See Hill v. United States, 368 U.S. 424, 430 (1962); Housley v. State, 119 Idaho 885, 889, 811 P.2d 495, 499 (Ct. App. 1991). An exception exists, however, where defects that appear on the face of the record show that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. State v. Wolfe, ___ Idaho ___, ___ P.3d ___ (Feb. 17, 2015). Therefore, we must determine whether the defect in Gould's indictment is jurisdictional. Jurisdiction is a question of law and is reviewed de novo. State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 839, 252 P.3d 1255, 1257 (2011); State v. Barros, 131 Idaho 379, 381, 957 P.2d 1095, 1097 (1998).
In certain cases, a deficient charging document fails to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon a court and thereby renders any resulting judgment void. Criminal charging documents serve to provide the jurisdictional grounding for the court to hear the case. State v. Olin, 153 Idaho 891, 893, 292 P.3d 282, 284 (Ct. App. 2012). An information, indictment, or complaint alleging an offense committed within the state of Idaho confers subject matter jurisdiction uponthe court. State v. Rogers, 140 Idaho 223, 228, 91 P.3d 1127, 1132 (2004). It follows that a charging document may be so defective that it fails to confer jurisdiction. See id. (). In State v. Dalling, 128 Idaho 203, 204-05, 911 P.2d 1115, 1116-17 (1996), the Idaho Supreme Court held that a grand jury whose term had expired lacked the authority to indict and that a purported indictment by an expired grand jury was void. Of course, if a charging document is void, it could not confer subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and a resulting judgment would be void. Not every defect in a charging document is jurisdictional, however. In State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755, 759, 101 P.3d 699, 703 (2004), for example, the Court held that a charging document that failed to allege a required element of the offense, but did reference the appropriate code section defining the offense, was not jurisdictionally defective. See also Olin, 153 Idaho at 893-94, 292 P.3d at 284-85 ().
We hold that the defect in Gould's indictment was not jurisdictional. It is not comparable to the types of defects that have been deemed jurisdictional. Defects in charging documents have been found to be jurisdictional in very limited circumstances. For example, in Olin, we outlined four types of jurisdictional defects:
(1) the alleged facts are not made criminal by statute; (2) there is a failure to state facts essential to establish the offense charged; (3) the alleged facts show on their face that the court has no jurisdiction of the charged offense; or (4) the allegations fail to show that the offense charged was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.
Id. at 893, 292 P.3d at 284.3 These four categories all share a common thread: the facts as alleged in the charging document do not amount to a crime that may be tried in Idaho courts. The jurisdictional defect recognized by Dalling is similarly fundamental. There, because the term of the grand jury had expired, "[T]he grand jurors were acting without authority in the status of an office that no longer existed." Dalling, 128 Idaho at 206, 911 P.2d at 1118.
Gould does not argue that his conduct did not amount to an offense, nor that the grand jury lacked the authority to issue indictments, nor any other defect of a fundamental or structural nature. There was merely an absence of the names of the testifying witnesses. None of the reported decisions interpreting either I.C. § 19-1404 or I.C.R. 6.6 hold that this or a similar defect is jurisdictional. Accordingly, we conclude that Gould's claim is...
To continue reading
Request your trial