State v. Poe

Decision Date16 March 2022
Docket NumberDocket No. 48536
Parties STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Malinda Rose POE, Defendant-Respondent.
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for appellant State of Idaho. Dayton Reed argued.

Malinda Rose Poe, respondent pro se.

STEGNER, Justice.

The Idaho Industrial Commission appeals the dismissal of motion to renew a restitution order in a criminal case. The Owyhee County Prosecuting Attorney obtained an order of restitution against Malinda Poe in 2005, which required Poe to pay $2,346 to the Industrial Commission's Crime Victims Compensation Program.1 In 2010, the Industrial Commission sought an order renewing the order of restitution, which was granted by the magistrate court. Five years later, the Industrial Commission sought another order renewing the order of restitution, which was also granted at that time by the magistrate court.

In 2020, the Industrial Commission sought a third order renewing the order of restitution. This time, however, the magistrate court denied the request, finding that the Industrial Commission lacked standing to seek a renewal of the restitution order. The Industrial Commission appealed to the district court, which, sitting in its intermediate appellate capacity, also concluded the Commission lacked standing, and further concluded that the order of restitution was not subject to renewal pursuant to Idaho Code section 10-1110. The Industrial Commission timely appealed to this Court. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the decision of the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2003, Malinda Poe was charged with committing a battery against Michelle Aguilera in violation of Idaho Code section 18-903.2 Poe pleaded not guilty and was released on her own recognizance prior to trial. A no contact order was entered the same day, forbidding Poe from having direct or indirect contact with Aguilera. Poe was appointed a public defender, and on October 20, 2003, she pleaded guilty to an amended charge of disturbing the peace in violation of Idaho Code section 18-6409.

The Owyhee County Prosecuting Attorney sought an "Order of Restitution" against Poe. On November 24, 2003, Magistrate Judge Thomas Ryan granted an Order of Restitution against Poe, ordering her to pay $3,035 in restitution to Aguilera. Poe did not pay the amount required by the Order of Restitution and, by April 29, 2005, the Idaho Industrial Commission's Crime Victims Compensation Program ("Industrial Commission" or "Commission") had paid $2,346 on behalf of Poe to Aguilera. The Industrial Commission requested that the Owyhee County Prosecuting Attorney seek to amend the Order of Restitution so that the Commission was also listed as a victim entitled to restitution, and an "Amended Order of Restitution" to that effect was entered against Poe on July 27, 2005. The Amended Order required Poe to pay $2,346 in restitution to the Industrial Commission and $35 to Aguilera, for a total of $2,381.3

Poe did not pay the amount required by the Amended Order of Restitution and the Industrial Commission sought an "Order Renewing Restitution Order and Judgment" (the First Renewal Order). On July 7, 2010, Magistrate Judge Dan C. Grober granted the order, which read:

WHEREAS, on July 27, 2005, Plaintiff received a restitution order in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of the State of Idaho, in and for the County of Owyhee, against Malinda Poe, in the amount of $2,346.00; and
WHEREAS, a lien as expressed in Idaho Code § 10-1110 was properly perfected by recording of the Restitution Order and Judgment in the County of Owyhee, State of Idaho, on August 6, 2009, under instrument number 268908; and
WHEREAS, the restitution order in this matter has not been totally satisfied, as shown by Plaintiff's Motion; and
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has properly moved for renewal of restitution order pursuant to Idaho Code § 10-1111 ;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the restitution order in this case be renewed and the lien established by Idaho Code § 10-1110 shall continue for five (5) years from the date of this Order.

Five years later, on July 14, 2015, Magistrate Judge Grober entered a second Order Renewing Restitution Order and Judgment (the Second Renewal Order) in favor of the Industrial Commission, which again provided "the lien established by Idaho Code § 10-1110 shall continue for five (5) years from the date of this Order."

On July 2, 2020, approximately five years after the Second Renewal Order, the Industrial Commission filed a motion to renew the restitution order for a third time. Attached to the motion was "a proposed third Order Renewing Restitution Order and Judgment" (the Proposed Third Renewal Order), which, if granted, would have renewed the restitution order against Poe for the remaining balance of $1,225. On July 7, 2020, the Industrial Commission received notice that Magistrate Judge Shane Darrington, who was now presiding over the matter, denied the motion for the Proposed Third Renewal Order. Citing State of Idaho v. Johnson , 167 Idaho 454, 470 P.3d 1263 (Ct. App. 2020), the magistrate court found that the "Industrial Commission ha[d] no standing to bring this motion[.]"

On July 9, 2020, the Industrial Commission requested that the magistrate court reconsider its decision to deny the Commission's motion seeking the Proposed Third Renewal Order. In response, the magistrate court's clerk notified the Commission that "if you would like to set it for hearing, with notice to all parties, you may do so." The Industrial Commission then filed a notice of hearing and specifically requested that the magistrate court review the Idaho Court of Appeals decision in Workman v. Rich , 162 Idaho 711, 403 P.3d 1200 (2017), prior to the hearing.

On July 20, 2020, the hearing was held in magistrate court. Present at the hearing were Blair Jaynes, the Lead Deputy Attorney General for the Idaho Industrial Commission, and Sam Dickinson, a deputy Owyhee County Prosecuting Attorney who appeared for the State. Neither Poe nor a lawyer representing her attended the hearing. The magistrate court "noted that the State did not receive notice of this hearing" and asked Dickinson if he "was ready to proceed." Dickinson explained he "was not prepared to go forward" because "his office did not know what this [hearing] was about." The magistrate court ended the hearing and "continued the matter until such time as the State is made of [sic] aware of the hearing."

Instead of pursuing the hearing in magistrate court, the Industrial Commission appealed to the district court. On December 1, 2020, the district court issued its Memorandum Decision and Order Dismissing Appeal. The district court concluded that the "Industrial Commission has no standing to intervene in a criminal case." The district court further concluded that a "[r]estitution order is not a judgment, and is not subject to renewal under" Idaho Code section 10-1110. The district court then summarily dismissed the appeal. The Industrial Commission timely appealed to this Court.

On March 23, 2021, after the Commission filed its notice of appeal to this Court but before it had filed its opening brief, the Owyhee County Prosecuting Attorney filed a motion in magistrate court to renew the 2005 amended restitution order. Contemporaneously filed with the motion was a notice of hearing, in which the prosecutor requested a hearing be held on May 10, 2021, in order to resume the hearing that had been continued on July 20, 2020. On March 25, 2021, without a hearing, the magistrate court entered an "Order Renewing Restitution Order and Judgment" for the third time (the Third Renewal Order), with the Industrial Commission erroneously listed as the plaintiff. On May 11, 2021, several weeks after the Commission's opening brief was filed before this Court, the magistrate court entered another "Order Renewing Restitution Order and Judgment" nunc pro tunc (the Nunc Pro Tunc Renewal Order), which was to be back-dated to July 2, 2020, the date the Commission originally filed its motion to renew the amended restitution order for the third time.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When this Court reviews the decision of a district court sitting in its capacity as an appellate court, the standard of review is as follows:

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.
Bailey v. Bailey , 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012) (quoting Losser v. Bradstreet , 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008) ). Thus, this Court does not review the decision of the magistrate court. Id. "Rather, we are ‘procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the decisions of the district court.’ " Id. (quoting State v. Korn , 148 Idaho 413, 415 n. 1, 224 P.3d 480, 482 n. 1 (2009) ).

Pelayo v. Pelayo , 154 Idaho 855, 858–59, 303 P.3d 214, 217–18 (2013).

"Jurisdictional issues, like standing, are questions of law, over which this Court exercises free review." Tucker v. State , 162 Idaho 11, 17, 394 P.3d 54, 60 (2017) (quoting In re Jerome Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs , 153 Idaho 298, 308, 281 P.3d 1076, 1086 (2012) ).

III. ANALYSIS
A. We first consider whether this appeal is moot.

On appeal, the Commission argues neither the Third Renewal Order nor the Nunc Pro Tunc Renewal Order render this appeal moot. We agree. " ‘An issue becomes moot if it does not present a real and substantial controversy that is capable of being concluded’ by judicial relief." State v. Barclay , 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329 (2010) (quoting Koch v. Canyon Cnty. , 145...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT