State v. Orozco
| Decision Date | 19 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 47263 |
| Citation | 168 Idaho 274,483 P.3d 331 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lucas Ty OROZCO, Defendant-Appellant. |
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Ben P. McGreevy argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
This case asks us to consider the constitutionality of a statute requiring juvenile offenders to be tried as adults for certain violent offenses, including robbery. Idaho Code section 20-509, which is sometimes referred to as an "automatic waiver," mandates that a juvenile accused of committing one of the enumerated offenses "shall be charged, arrested and proceeded against by complaint, indictment or information as an adult." I.C. § 20-509(1).
Fifteen-year-old Lucas Orozco was charged with robbery and burglary, both felonies, for allegedly robbing a Caldwell convenience store. After a magistrate court determined there was probable cause to charge Orozco with the felonies, it waived juvenile jurisdiction and bound him over to district court as an adult pursuant to Idaho Code section 20-509. Orozco objected to this automatic waiver, filing a motion with the district court challenging the constitutionality of section 20-509. The district court denied the motion, relying on precedent from the Idaho Court of Appeals, which has previously upheld the constitutionality of section 20-509. Orozco appealed, arguing that the automatic waiver denied him procedural due process protections afforded to him by the U.S. Constitution. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the district court.
On November 2, 2018, three masked individuals carrying guns1 robbed a Jacksons convenience store in Caldwell, Idaho. The Jacksons’ employee stated that three males entered the store and demanded that money from the cash register be placed in a blue backpack. The men also grabbed some cigars from behind the counter before fleeing the store and driving away in a silver Hyundai Accent. The employee stated that as the three were leaving the store, one of them threatened, "if you call the police we'll come back and kill you."
After a brief investigation, police conducted a traffic stop of a silver Hyundai Accent driven by a seventeen-year-old male. The officer observed evidence inside the vehicle that matched the employee's description of the robbery, and the driver was taken to the Caldwell Police Department for questioning. Eventually, the driver revealed the names of the other two accomplices, one of whom was fifteen-year-old Lucas Orozco. On November 4, 2018, police interviewed Orozco at the Caldwell police station after apprising him of his Miranda2 rights. Orozco confessed to taking part in the robbery and was arrested.
A criminal complaint charged Orozco with one count of robbery in violation of Idaho Code section 18-6501 and one count of burglary in violation of Idaho Code section 18-1401. During the preliminary hearing, the magistrate court found probable cause existed and bound Orozco over to district court. Because Orozco was charged with robbery—one of the enumerated offenses under section 20-509—the magistrate court automatically waived juvenile jurisdiction over him. However, it ordered that he be housed in a juvenile correction facility. The State then filed an Information in the district court charging Orozco, as an adult, with robbery and burglary. On December 11, 2018, Orozco filed an objection to the automatic waiver and moved the district court to declare Idaho Code section 20-509 unconstitutional. At a hearing on January 30, 2019, the district court orally denied Orozco's motion.
As part of a conditional plea agreement, Orozco agreed to plead guilty to the burglary charge in exchange for a dismissal of the robbery charge. Additionally, the State agreed to recommend probation and not object to an order withholding judgment, so long as Orozco fully complied with the terms of his pretrial release until the date of sentencing. Conversely, if Orozco did not comply with the terms of his pretrial release, the State would proceed on both the robbery and burglary charges.
At the change of plea hearing, the district court inquired with Orozco's counsel regarding the status of the automatic waiver for the burglary charge.3 Counsel for Orozco clarified, During the plea hearing, Orozco reserved his right to appeal the district court's decision on the constitutionality of section 20-509. The district court then engaged in a plea colloquy with Orozco and conditionally accepted his guilty plea for the burglary charge. Orozco was released pending sentencing.
Orozco was sentenced on June 26, 2019. At the hearing, the State acknowledged that Orozco had fully complied with the terms of his pretrial release. The State agreed to dismiss the robbery charge, recommend probation, and not object to a withheld judgment. The district court entered an order withholding judgment and placed Orozco on six years of probation.4 The district court also dismissed the robbery charge. Orozco timely appeals the district court's denial of his motion to declare Idaho Code section 20-509 unconstitutional.
"Constitutional questions are reviewed de novo ." State v. Kelley , 161 Idaho 686, 689, 390 P.3d 412, 415 (2017) (italics in original). "For constitutional challenges, ‘every presumption is in favor of the constitutionality of the statute, and the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of a statutory provision rests upon the challenger.’ " Zeyen v. Pocatello/Chubbuck Sch. Dist. No. 25 , 165 Idaho 690, 694, 451 P.3d 25, 29 (2019) (quoting Osmunson v. State , 135 Idaho 292, 294, 17 P.3d 236, 238 (2000) ).
The State initially charged Orozco with robbery and burglary, both felonies under Idaho Code section 18-6501 and 18-1401. Although Orozco was a minor at the time of the crime, Idaho Code section 20-509(b) lists robbery among the violent offenses that qualify for automatic transfer to an adult criminal court5 without an investigation or hearing in the juvenile court.6 As a result, both of Orozco's charges were adjudicated in district court. Orozco challenges the automatic waiver of jurisdiction by the magistrate court. He sought to have the district court declare section 20-509 unconstitutional. The district court orally denied the motion:
So generally ... the party challenging the statute on a constitutional ground bears the burden of establishing the statute is unconstitutional. There's a presumption of validity in the statutes. The statute in question [has] been addressed in the past in the State [vs. ] Jensen —that's the Court of Appeals 2016 case—and the Anderson case.7 That's an earlier case, 1985. Neither of those cases have been overruled. They're still good law. I'm going to follow the findings in those cases and deny the motion.
On appeal, Orozco initially argues that Idaho's automatic waiver statute violates due process because a juvenile has a "liberty interest in the individualized treatment available in juvenile court."8 Orozco next argues that because he has a liberty interest in being treated as a juvenile, Idaho Code section 20-509 does not afford him the process that is constitutionally due before depriving him of that liberty interest. In response, the State asserts that because Orozco has no statutory or constitutional right to be treated as a juvenile, due process protections are inapplicable.
"It is fundamental to our legal system that the State shall not deprive ‘any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ " State v. Rogers , 144 Idaho 738, 740, 170 P.3d 881, 883 (2007) ). " Guzman v. Piercy , 155 Idaho 928, 939, 318 P.3d 918, 929 (2014) (quoting Bradbury v. Idaho Judicial Council , 136 Idaho 63, 72–73, 28 P.3d 1006, 1015–16 (2001) ); see also Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 333–35, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976).
As for the first step, a liberty interest may arise "from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies." Wilkinson v. Austin , 545 U.S. 209, 221, 125 S.Ct. 2384, 162 L.Ed.2d 174 (2005). "Whether any procedural protections are due depends on the extent to which an individual will be ‘condemned to suffer grievous loss.’ " Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (quoting Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath , 341 U.S. 123, 168, 71 S.Ct. 624, 95 L.Ed. 817 (1951) ). Regarding the second step, we have held that State v. Roth , 166 Idaho 281, 285, 458 P.3d 150, 154 (2020) (quoting Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper , 133 Idaho 82, 91, 982 P.2d 917, 926 (1999) (internal citations omitted).
Orozco argues that he has a protected liberty interest in his status as a juvenile due to the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial