State v. Reine, 19477
| Decision Date | 03 November 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 19477,19477 |
| Citation | 122 Idaho 928,841 P.2d 458 |
| Parties | STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Merle Christopher REINE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Wood and John A. Olson (argued), Twin Falls, for defendant-appellant.
Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., Thomas P. Watkins, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Boise, for plaintiff-respondent.
This is an appeal from an order revoking probation. Merle Christopher Reine argues that his due process rights were violated because he was found to have violated a condition of probation which he never acknowledged knowing, that the probation condition was not reasonably related to his crime, and that the court abused its discretion when it revoked probation. We affirm.
Reine was charged with two counts of first degree burglary. I.C. § 18-1401, -1402, -1404. Under a plea agreement, one count was dropped and Reine pled guilty to the other. In January, 1990, the court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with a minimum two-year period of confinement. The court retained jurisdiction for 120 days, which was later extended by sixty days. On August 1, 1990, Reine was placed on two years' probation.
In December, 1990, Reine admitted violating his probation and was sentenced to 120 days in the county jail. After his release from jail, he again was placed on two years' probation. In April 1991, a month after his release from jail and reinstatement to probation, Reine's probation officer alleged that Reine had violated probation five more times. These alleged violations included, among other things, failure to pay restitution and the costs of supervision, and possession of stolen property. At the hearing, the court held that four of these violations were not proved by the state. The fifth allegation was that Reine had failed to abide by the first condition in the probation supervision agreement. Condition number one of the Standard Agreement of Supervision stated: "LAWS AND COOPERATION: I [Reine] shall respect and obey all laws and comply with any lawful request of my supervising officer or an agent of the Division of Probation and Parole."
Under authority of this condition, Reine's probation officer instructed him not to drive or let anyone else drive Reine's car until Reine purchased insurance for it. The probation officer then claimed that, while the car was uninsured, Reine had driven the car and had let his girlfriend drive it. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence that Reine had personally driven the car without insurance. However, the state proved that Reine let his girlfriend drive it. The court found this to be a violation and held that "the request of the department to have the car parked and not driven by anyone (until insured) is a lawful and reasonable request of the department relative to their supervision of the defendant on probation." The court revoked probation and ordered Reine's sentence be executed.
Reine's first and second arguments are that there was no affirmative indication that he knew of the condition and that the condition was not reasonably related to his crime. Neither of these issues were raised below. Issues not raised at the trial court level may not be raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Mauro, 121 Idaho 178, 824 P.2d 109 (1991); State v. Denny, 122 Idaho 563, 835 P.2d 1374 (Ct.App.1992). An exception to this rule applies if the issue raised on appeal addresses a fundamental right. Mauro, supra. An error implicating a fundamental right is an error "which so profoundly distorts the trial that it produces manifest injustice and deprives the accused of his constitutional right to due process." Mauro, 121 Idaho at 180, 824 P.2d at 111.
It is fundamental that a defendant have notice of the crime or violation for which he is being incarcerated. However, there was no error in this case. This Court has held that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Keene
...committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review the determination for an abuse of discretion. State v. Reine, 122 Idaho 928, 931, 841 P.2d 458, 461 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Roy, 113 Idaho 388, 392, 744 P.2d 116, 120 (Ct. App. 1987). Where the district court acts within the bo......
-
Bojorquez v. State
...signature on a probation order demonstrates that he or she accepted and understood the terms of probation. See State v. Reine, 122 Idaho 928, 930, 841 P.2d 458, 460 (Ct.App.1992). The allegations in Bojorquez's application for post-conviction relief asserts only that the district court impr......
-
State v. Upton
...is committed to the discretion of the trial court, and we review the determination for an abuse of discretion. State v. Reine, 122 Idaho 928, 841 P.2d 458 (Ct.App.1992); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct.App.1988); State v. Roy, 113 Idaho 388, 392, 744 P.2d 116, 120 (Ct.App.198......