State v. Snyder

• Decision Date: 23 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 9464,9464
• Citation: 401 P.2d 548,88 Idaho 479
• Parties: The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda M. SNYDER, Defendant-Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 548

401 P.2d 548

88 Idaho 479

The STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Linda M. SNYDER, Defendant-Respondent.

No. 9464.

Supreme Court of Idaho.

April 23, 1965.

Allan G. Shepard, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Weston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, James J. May, Pros. Atty., William J. Langley, City Atty., Twin Falls, for appellant.

Kramer, Walker, Pope & Plankey, Twin Falls, for respondent.

SMITH, Justice.

Appellant has appealed from an order of the district court granting respondent's motion to set aside her plea of guilty entered in the police court of Twin Falls, Idaho, to the offense of reckless driving. Such order adjudges the judgment of the police court to be void and requires said court to tender back to respondent a fine of $50.00 imposed and by her paid, and to proceed as if no plea of guilty and judgment had been entered.

On August 7, 1963, respondent was charged with the misdemeanor of driving a motor vehicle in a reckless manner by a complaint filed in the police court of the City of Twin Falls, Idaho. The same day, upon being brought before the court for arraignment, she pleaded guilty to the charge. The court thereupon entered judgment ordering respondent to pay a fine of $50.00 and costs, and further ordering that her driver's license be forwarded to the Department of Law Enforcement of the State of Idaho, together with a report of her conviction of the offense, with the recommendation that the license be suspended for a period of thirty days. Respondent paid the fine and costs.

On August 15, 1963, respondent, through her attorneys, filed in the police court her notice of appeal to the district court from such judgment. August 16, 1963, she filed in the police court a motion to withdraw her plea of guilty, with leave to enter in its stead a plea of not guilty to the charge.

On November 8, 1963, the attorney for the City of Twin Falls filed in the district court a motion to dismiss the appeal on grounds that respondent on August 7, 1963, had appeared before the police court, entered her plea of guilty to the charge of driving a motor vehicle in a reckless manner, and had paid the fine and costs imposed by the court. On December 5, 1963, respondent, through her attorneys, in opposition to the motion to dismiss, filed in the district court an affidavit asserting 'that the constitutional rights of the defendant [respondent] were violated in obtaining a plea of guilty and securing the payment of the fine in the lower court * * * [and] that the defendant should be afforded her constitutional rights of a fair trial and that the determination of her rights should not be made upon a Motion to Dismiss.'

The district court upon hearing the matter entered an order denying appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal, granting respondent's motion to withdraw her plea of guilty, and remanded the case to the City of Twin Falls Police Court with instructions:

(1) That the judgment against respondent be declared void.

(2) That the police court allow respondent to withdraw her plea of guilty and proceed in the action as if judgment and plea of guilty had not been entered, and

(3) That the police court tender to respondent the fine earlier imposed upon her.

Appellant thereupon appealed.

Appellant by its assignments urges error committed by the district court in entering the order aforesaid; it seeks to apply the rule, that when a defendant in a criminal case satisfies a judgment against him by voluntary payment of the fine imposed, he waives his right to appeal. Appellant relies upon State v. Pefley, 80 Idaho 525, 335 P.2d 340 (1959), in support of its argument that respondent waived her right to appeal to the district court by pleading guilty to the charged offense and voluntarily paying the fine imposed.

In the Pefley case, defendant was arrested and taken before a justice court on a charge of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and was sentenced to serve thirty days in jail and fined $200. The jail sentence was suspended and the fine was immediately paid, whereupon defendant was released. Subsequently an order was made by the Department of Law Enforcement revoking defendant's driver's license for a period of one year under the provision of I.C. § 49-1102.

Defendant Pefley then appealed from the judgment of conviction to the district court. The State moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the defendant had voluntarily satisfied the judgment, the motion being accompanied by an affidavit of the justice of the peace as to the proceedings in the justice's court. Defendant filed a counter-affidavit alleging that he was persuaded by misadvice of the justice of the peace to plead guilty to the charge, which allegation was denied by a second affidavit of the justice of the peace. The district court upon hearing the cause entered a judgment dismissing the appeal. Defendant Pefley then appealed to the Supreme Court. This Court succinctly stated its ruling against Pefley in language as follows:

'While there are cases to the contrary, according to the great weight of authority, where a defendant in a criminal case satisfies in full the judgment against him by voluntarily paying the fine imposed upon him, he waives his right to appeal. [Citations.]' 80 Idaho at 527, 335 P.2d at 341.

In State v. Dawn, 41 Idaho 199, 239 P. 279 (1925), a defendant, upon his plea of guilty entered in an inferior court, was adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor and sentenced to pay a fine and suffer imprisonment. This Court recognized the right of the defendant to appeal to the district court from the judgment of conviction, I.C. § 19-3937, but pointed out that a plea of guilty, unless the plead is permitted to be withdrawn waives any defect not jurisdictional; said the Court:

'The defendant may not, upon such appeal, have the facts reviewed, unless he had been permitted to withdraw such plea, for the reason that the plea of guilty, generally speaking, is a record of admission of whatever is well charged in the complaint and waives any defect not jurisdictional.' 41 Idaho at 202, 239 P. at 279.

In the case at bar, however, respondent had satisfied the police court judgment entered upon her plea of guilty, prior to the time she perfected her appeal. She had not as yet filed a motion to withdraw her plea of guilty.

After the satisfaction of a judgment in a criminal case there is nothing on which a judgment of the appellate court can act effectively because there is nothing from which to appeal, and further proceedings are moot. State v. Pefley, supra; State v. Cohen, 45 Nev. 266, 201 P. 1027, 18 A.L.R. 864 (1921); People v. Pyrross, 323 Mich. 329, 35 N.W.2d 281 (1948).

Appellant's assignment of error is meritorious. The entry of the order of the district court constitutioned error.

The holding of this Court in the premises renders it unnecessary to rule upon the further issues raised by appellant, i.e., whether the district court erred in failing to try the cause de novo upon appeal from the police court.

Respondent asserts that although she satisfied the judgment against her in the criminal cause in the police court, she did not waive her rights of appeal on collateral issues. She relied upon the affidavit of her attorney to the effect that her constitutional rights were violated 'in obtaining a plea of guilty, securing payment of the fine'. The affidavit does not contain any allegation of fact upon which to base the affiant's conclusions that respondent's rights were violated. While respondent urges that appellant 'did not see fit to produce evidence denying the allegation,' inspection of the affidavit discloses that it contains no factual allegation to controvert, or anything other than a mere conclusion of the affiant. The rule is stated in 2 C.J.S. Affidavits § 16 b. (1), as follows:

'* * * The averment of facts in an affidavit to be used in judicial proceedings must be sufficiently definite to warrant the judicial action sought, and such facts must be stated as warrant the court in drawing the legal conclusions sought to be established. Averments which merely state opinions or legal conclusions or characterizations, speculations, and inferences, instead of facts are insufficient.'

See also Craig v. Lane, 60 Idaho 178, 89 P.2d 1008 (1939); State ex rel. Helena Adjustment Co. v. District Court, 92 Mont. 587, 19 P.2d 226 (1933); People v. Thompson, 5 Cal.App.2d 655, 43 P.2d 600 (1935); Petri Cleaners, Inc. v....