State v. Olsen
| Decision Date | 03 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48027 |
| Citation | 508 P.3d 1250 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jennifer Marie OLSEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Fuller Law Offices, Twin Falls, for Appellant. Daniel Brown argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Mark Olson argued.
Jennifer Olsen brings this appeal, arguing that the current application of withheld judgments in Idaho violates Idaho Code section 19-2601 because it causes criminal defendants to be convicted, thereby negating the legal benefits envisioned by the statute. Olsen was charged with misdemeanor driving under the influence, first offense. She entered into a plea agreement with the State, but later asked the magistrate court to not accept her guilty plea and grant her a "true" withheld judgment instead—i.e., one by which no conviction would take place. The magistrate court denied her motion, accepted her guilty plea, and granted her a withheld judgment. As part of the withheld judgment, the magistrate court placed Olsen on supervised probation for 12 months subject to certain conditions, including: a requirement that she pay a fine and court costs; that her driving privileges be suspended for 180 days; that an interlock system be installed in her car; and that she attend Court Alcohol School and the Victim's Impact Panel.
Olsen appealed to the district court, arguing that (1) the magistrate court abused its discretion in denying her request for a "true" withheld judgment whereby Olsen would not sustain a criminal conviction; and (2) the magistrate court's granting of the withheld judgment was not appropriately applied or effectuated. The district court affirmed the magistrate court's decision. Olsen now appeals those same issues to this Court.
On May 10, 2019, Jennifer Olsen was charged with the crime of misdemeanor driving under the influence in violation of Idaho Code section 18-8004(1)(a), a first offense. Olsen entered a guilty plea on May 16, 2019, but later moved to withdraw the plea because she entered the plea without first seeking the advice of an attorney. The State did not object, and the magistrate court permitted Olsen to withdraw her guilty plea.
The State and Olsen later reached an agreement that required her to plead guilty to the DUI as alleged. However, before entering her guilty plea, Olsen filed a motion asking the magistrate court for what she termed "a ‘true’ withheld judgment, or in other words, a withheld judgment whereby the Defendant will not sustain a criminal conviction." She asked the magistrate court to "not accept the Defendant's guilty plea at the time of sentencing, so as to prevent a conviction." (Emphasis in original.) Olsen further asked the magistrate court to "withhold judgment[ ] and instruct the Clerk that upon entry of the Order Withholding Judgment, that the Odyssey system not reflect ‘Guilty.’ " After a hearing, the magistrate court denied Olsen's motion for a "true" withheld judgment. Olsen filed a motion for permissive appeal of the interlocutory order denying her motion for a withheld judgment. The motion for permissive appeal was also denied.
Olsen then entered a guilty plea to the charge of driving under the influence, as charged on January 27, 2020. On February 25, 2020, the magistrate court accepted her guilty plea and granted her a withheld judgment consistent with the court's understanding of Idaho Code section 19-2601. The magistrate court placed Olsen on supervised probation for 12 months subject to certain conditions, including a requirement that she pay a $200 fine and $202.50 for court costs, that her driving privileges be suspended for 180 days, that an interlock system be installed in her car, and that she attend Court Alcohol School and the Victim's Impact Panel.
Olsen appealed to the district court on April 7, 2020, arguing that (1) the magistrate court abused its discretion in denying her request for a "true" withheld judgment whereby Olsen would not sustain a criminal conviction, and (2) the withheld judgment entered by the magistrate court was not appropriately applied or effectuated. On October 22, 2020, the district court issued its memorandum decision affirming the magistrate court's judgment. Olsen timely appealed to this Court.
When the Idaho Supreme Court reviews the decision of a district court sitting in its capacity as an intermediate appellate court, it applies the following standard of review:
The Supreme Court reviews the trial court (magistrate) 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. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure. Thus, this Court does not review the decision of the magistrate court. Rather, we are procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the decisions of the district court.
Papin v. Papin , 166 Idaho 9, 454 P.3d 1092, 1101 (2019) (quoting Pelayo v. Pelayo , 154 Idaho 855, 858–59, 303 P.3d 214, 217–18 (2013) ).
When this Court is asked to interpret a statute, it presents a question of law that we review on a de novo basis. State v. Smalley , 164 Idaho 780, 783, 435 P.3d 1100, 1103 (2019).
On appeal, Olsen argues that the district court erred when it affirmed the magistrate court's decision to not grant her motion for a "true" withheld judgment, leaving her with a conviction, one year of probation, a suspended license, and a fine and costs. Olsen asks this Court to revisit its decision in U.S. v. Sharp , 145 Idaho 403, 179 P.3d 1059 (2008), and reconsider the correct application of withheld judgments pursuant to Idaho law, rules, and policy set forth in Idaho cases prior to Sharp .
In Sharp , this Court agreed to answer the following question of law certified by the United States District Court for the District of Utah, Northern Division: "Does an outstanding withheld judgment based on a guilty plea qualify as a conviction under Idaho law?" We answered the question "in the affirmative." Id . at 403, 179 P.3d at 1059. After pleading guilty to burglary in Idaho, Sharp was granted a withheld judgment and placed on probation for three years. Id . He successfully completed his probation, but never took the steps to have his plea withdrawn and his case dismissed as set forth in Idaho Code section 19–2604(1). Id . at 404, 179 P.3d at 1060. Five years later, Sharp was charged in federal court in Utah for illegal possession of a firearm by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Id . The charge was based on Sharp's earlier burglary conviction in Idaho for which he received the withheld judgment. Id . This Court ultimately answered the certified question by holding that "[a]n outstanding withheld judgment based on a guilty plea qualifies as a conviction under Idaho law." Id . at 407, 179 P.3d at 1063.
In essence, this case now asks us to reconsider the meaning and effect of a withheld judgment and overturn Sharp . For the reasons set forth below, we stand by our decision in Sharp .
Olsen believes she should have been granted a withheld judgment without the magistrate court (1) requiring that she plead guilty and (2) convicting her of a crime. A sentencing court's ability to grant a withheld judgment is found among a variety of sentencing options listed in Idaho Code section 19-2601 :
(Emphasis added.) The original version of Idaho Code section 19-2601, enacted over 100 years ago, provided: "whenever any person under the age of 25 years shall have been convicted of any crime against the laws of this State ... the court may in its discretion suspend the execution of judgment or withhold judgment ..." Ch. 104, § 1, 1915 Idaho Sess. Laws 244, 244–45. This law was amended in 1943 and now reads: "Whenever any person shall have been convicted, or enter a plea of guilty in any District Court of the state of Idaho, of or to any crime against the laws of the State ..." I.C. § 19-2601.
This Court has long defined the term "conviction" as the result of a court proceeding wherein guilt is established. See, e.g. , In re Dawson , 20 Idaho 178, 189, 117 P. 696, 700 (1911) (). In Sharp , we again held that 145 Idaho 403, 404, 179 P.3d 1059, 1060 (internal citations omitted).
Currently, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial