State v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 30 January 2019
• Docket Number: Docket No. 45295
• Citation: 434 P.3d 209,164 Idaho 605
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant, v. Ryan Kelly MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent.

164 Idaho 605
434 P.3d 209

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent-Cross Appellant,
v.
Ryan Kelly MATTHEWS, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Respondent.

Docket No. 45295

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 2018 Term.

Opinion Filed: January 30, 2019

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise for appellant. Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Jeff Nye, Deputy Attorney General, argued.

BURDICK, Chief Justice.

164 Idaho 606

Ryan Kelly Matthews ("Matthews") appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence entered in Ada County district court. The State cross-appeals the district court’s decision not to award prosecution costs as part of the agreed-to restitution.

After Matthews was arrested for absconding from parole, methamphetamine was found on his person during the booking process at the Ada County Jail and Matthews was charged with possession of a controlled substance. After having his motion to suppress denied, Matthews agreed to a plea deal and the district court sentenced him to seven years with three years fixed. The district court declined to order the full amount of restitution for prosecution costs under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The district court stated it agreed with Matthews’s concern that he felt like he was having "to pay for exercising [his] constitutional right."

Matthews timely appealed contending that the district court abused its discretion by ignoring mitigating factors at sentencing. The State timely filed a cross-appeal based on the district court’s denial of the State’s request for prosecution costs. Specifically, the State argues that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to order Matthews to pay the costs of prosecution on the sole basis that it would infringe on his constitutional rights because such a statement is inconsistent with this Court’s precedent. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On May 6, 2016, Matthews was arrested on an agent’s warrant after he failed to check in with his parole officer for a period of weeks. The parole officer believed that Matthews had absconded from supervision and was living in an unapproved location. A woman with whom Matthews was staying at the time alerted parole and probation officers to Matthews’s whereabouts after she grew "concerned for her safety and the safety of her children" because Matthews was "bringing in some unsavory characters to her house" and she "suspected that he was also using narcotics." With her permission, the parole officers entered the woman’s home, found Matthews asleep, and arrested him. During Matthews’s booking process at the Ada County Jail, two plastic baggies containing methamphetamine were found in his pocket. Matthews was subsequently

434 P.3d 211

164 Idaho 607

charged with possession of a controlled substance. He then filed a motion to suppress the evidence taken from his pocket which, after a hearing on the matter, the district court denied. Matthews then accepted a plea deal in which he pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Matthews’s counsel informed the district court of the agreement at the change-of-plea hearing, stating:

Your Honor, this is going to be quite straightforward, as far as a plea goes. This is simply to possessing a controlled substance. It’s going to be open recommendations. There will be no Information Part II.

The State has made it very clear that they are going to be asking for the cost of prosecution in this case. It’s somewhere in the three to $500 range. And that—Mr. Matthews would agree to that.

Beyond that, Your Honor, that’s the extent to the agreement in this case.

The court accepted Matthews’s guilty plea.

At sentencing, the State requested that Matthews be ordered to pay $200.00 in restitution for laboratory tests and $524.12 for prosecution costs in the case. Matthews’s counsel stated he did not object to the laboratory-costs restitution, but made no mention of the prosecution costs. After hearing arguments and hearing directly from Matthews, the district court sentenced Matthews to seven years with three years fixed and the remaining four years indeterminate. The district court also ordered Matthews to pay $285.50 in court costs and $200.00 in restitution for laboratory tests pursuant to Idaho Code section 37-2732(k). The district court, however, declined to order restitution for prosecution costs. Speaking directly to Matthews, the district court provided a rationale for denying restitution:

So one thing that you said in the presentence report that I agree with—and I wrote this down. This is a quote from you. You said, "My only concern with my plea bargain is that I have to pay three to $500 for having a hearing to suppress evidence. I would rather have to pay court costs than have to pay for exercising my constitutional right."

And that jumped out at me because I agree with you on that. I am not going to impose the restitution that you agreed to, frankly, for prosecution costs in the amount of $524.12.

Matthews timely appealed his sentence arguing that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider mitigating factors. The State cross-appealed arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in deciding not to award prosecution costs under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k) because the trial court’s rationale for doing so was inconsistent with relevant legal standards. Matthews also filed a motion pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35 for a reduction of sentence on August 28, 2017, which the district court denied. Matthews does not challenge the denial of that motion on appeal.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Did the district court abuse its discretion by sentencing Matthews to seven years, with three years fixed for felony possession of a Schedule II controlled substance?

2. Did the district court abuse its discretion by acting inconsistent with relevant legal standards when it declined to award the total amount of the agreed-to restitution for prosecution costs under Idaho Code section 37-2732(k) ?

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court uses an abuse-of-discretion standard of review to determine whether a sentence is excessive, State v. McIntosh , 160 Idaho 1, 8, 368 P.3d 621, 628 (2016), as well as to evaluate a district court’s decision regarding restitution under section 37-2732(k) of the Idaho Code. State v. Kelley , 161 Idaho 686, 691, 390 P.3d 412, 417 (2017). Under this standard, this Court considers whether the trial court: "(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason." Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).

434 P.3d 212

164 Idaho 608

IV. ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Matthews to a unified seven-year sentence with three years fixed because that sentence was reasonable in light of the record before the court.

Matthews argues that "given any view of the facts, his unified sentence of seven years, with three years fixed, is excessive." Matthews argues that his sentence "was not reasonable considering the nature of his offense ... his character, and ... was not necessary to protect the public interest." Matthews points to...