State v. Wisdom

• Decision Date: 11 April 2017
• Docket Number: Docket No. 44444
• Citation: 393 P.3d 576,161 Idaho 916
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Christina Rose WISDOM, Defendant-Appellant.

161 Idaho 916

393 P.3d 576

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Christina Rose WISDOM, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 44444

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, Concordia, February 2017.

Filed: April 11, 2017

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP, Boise, for appellant. Deborah Whipple argued.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Mark Olson, Deputy Attorney General, argued.

BURDICK, Chief Justice.

This appeal concerns a restitution award an Ada County District Court entered under Idaho Code section 19-5304. The award requires Christina Wisdom to pay $11,069.82 for counseling services for the victim of her crime. Wisdom appealed the award to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which vacated the award for lack of causation. We granted the State's timely petition for review, and we affirm the district court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In November 2013, Wisdom pled guilty to one count of injury to a child. That plea is based on Wisdom allowing her husband, Ronald Wisdom, to access Wisdom's daughter, M.L., who was born in a prior marriage, despite knowing that Ronald had previously sexually abused M.L. Wisdom first learned of Ronald's abuse shortly after it first occurred in 2007. At that time, M.L. told Wisdom of Ronald's abuse. Wisdom instructed M.L. "not to tell anyone ... and that [Wisdom] would figure things out." Wisdom, however, took no action. As a result, Ronald continued abusing M.L. until authorities intervened in 2013.

Ronald was indicted on three counts of lewd conduct with a minor under age sixteen. A jury convicted him on all three counts, and the "district court imposed concurrent unified 40-year sentences with 20 years fixed on each charge." The district court ordered Ronald to pay $11,069.82 in restitution for M.L.'s counseling, payable to Idaho Medicaid State Operations.

At Wisdom's sentencing, the State requested Ronald's restitution award be jointly and severally assessed against Wisdom. She made two objections. First, Wisdom argued the State had failed to establish her conduct caused M.L.'s injury. Second, Wisdom argued she could not repay the award. The district court rejected both objections and entered the award.

Wisdom appealed, and the Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the award for lack of causation. The State timely petitioned for review to this Court.

II. ISSUES ON APPEAL

1. Is Idaho Medicaid State Operations a "victim" eligible for restitution?

2. Did the State prove causation?

3. Does the restitution award constitute an abuse of discretion?

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When addressing a petition for review, this Court will give "serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the lower court." State v. Schall , 157 Idaho 488, 491, 337 P.3d 647, 650 (2014) (citation omitted). "[W]hether to order restitution, and in what amount, is within the district court's discretion and is guided by consideration of the factors set forth in Idaho Code section 19-5304(7)." State v. Corbus , 150 Idaho 599, 602, 249 P.3d 398, 401 (2011) (citing State v. Richmond , 137 Idaho 35, 37, 43 P.3d 794, 796 (Ct. App. 2002) ). To determine whether the district court abused its discretion, this Court evaluates whether the district court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with relevant legal standards; and (3) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Swallow v. Emergency Med. of Idaho, P.A. , 138 Idaho 589, 592, 67 P.3d 68, 71 (2003). The second and third requirements of that inquiry require the district court to base the restitution award on the preponderance of evidence submitted by the prosecutor, defendant, victim, or presentence investigator. I.C. § 19-5304(6). What amount of restitution to award is a question of fact for the district court, whose findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. Corbus , 150 Idaho at 602, 249 P.3d at 401. Substantial evidence is "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion." State v. Straub , 153 Idaho 882, 885, 292 P.3d 273, 276 (2013) ; see also State v. Nelson , 161 Idaho 692, 390 P.3d 418, 422–23 (2017) (holding that unsworn representations on prosecution expenses did not constitute substantial evidence to support an award of restitution for prosecution expenses "actually incurred").

IV. ANALYSIS

Wisdom offers three main arguments to contend the restitution award is improper. First is that Idaho Medicaid State Operations is not a "victim" eligible for restitution. Second is that the State failed to prove Wisdom caused M.L.'s injury. Third is that the restitution award constitutes an abuse of discretion due to Wisdom's financial circumstances.

A. Wisdom failed to preserve whether Idaho Medicaid State Operations is a "victim" eligible for restitution.

Wisdom maintains that the district court erred by awarding restitution to Idaho Medicaid State Operations (IMSO) because the State presented no evidence that IMSO is a "victim" eligible for restitution under Idaho Code section 19-5304(1)(e). Wisdom did not raise this argument below, but she contends it is preserved for appeal and invokes both subject matter jurisdiction and fundamental error.

As to subject matter jurisdiction, Wisdom asserts the "imposition of restitution without any proof that [IMSO] is a victim per the statute was an action beyond the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court." Since subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be raised for the first time on appeal, Wisdom argues the issue is properly raised.

This Court has defined "subject matter jurisdiction" as referring to:

(1) [T]he nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought; (2) the class of cases to which the particular one belongs and the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought; (3) the power of a court to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular one belongs; (4) both the class of cases and the particular subject matter involved; and (5) the competency of the court to hear and decide the case. However, subject matter jurisdiction does not depend on the particular parties in the case or on the manner in which they have stated their claims, nor does it depend on the correctness of any decision made by the court .

State v. Rogers , 140 Idaho 223, 227, 91 P.3d 1127, 1131 (2004) (emphasis added) (quoting 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts § 70 (1995) ).

Whether the district court erred by awarding restitution to IMSO on the basis that IMSO is not a "victim" does not implicate subject matter jurisdiction. Assuming the district court erred in this regard, the district court would have exceeded its authority by awarding restitution contrary to Idaho Code section 19-5304 ; its subject matter jurisdiction, however, would not be implicated. As instructed in Rogers , subject matter jurisdiction does not "depend on the correctness of any decision made by the court." 140 Idaho at 227, 91 P.3d at 1131.

Wisdom's second argument is fundamental error. In State v. Perry , 150 Idaho 209, 228, 245 P.3d 961, 980 (2010), this Court articulated the fundamental error doctrine as follows:

[T]he defendant bears the burden of persuading the appellate court that the alleged error: (1) violates one or more of the defendant's unwaived constitutional rights; (2) plainly exists (without the need for any additional information not contained in the appellate record, including information as to whether the failure to object was a tactical decision); and (3) was not harmless. If the defendant persuades the appellate court that the complained of error satisfies this three-prong inquiry, then the appellate court shall vacate and remand.

Wisdom asserts that the (1) restitution award violates her right to due process; (2) error is clear from the record since the State presented no evidence concerning whether IMSO is a "victim"; and (3) error prejudiced her because, absent the error, no restitution would have been awarded.

Wisdom's fundamental error argument is foreclosed by State v. Mosqueda , 150 Idaho 830, 833, 252 P.3d 563, 566 (Ct. App. 2010). The defendant in Mosqueda claimed vindictive sentencing when the district court apparently encouraged the State to request additional restitution beyond the original request, and after the State then did so, the district court awarded the higher amount. Id. Conceding he failed to raise the vindictive sentencing argument until the appeal, the defendant asserted the argument was preserved under the fundamental error doctrine. Id. The Court of Appeals disagreed, reasoning that restitution is not part of a criminal sentence. Id. at 834, 252 P.3d at 567. "Instead, a restitution proceeding is, in essence, a civil proceeding distinct from the criminal case." Id. (citations omitted). As such, Mosqueda held "that the fundamental error doctrine may not be invoked to raise a restitution issue for the first time on appeal because restitution proceedings are civil in nature." Id.

Mosqueda 's conclusion that restitution proceedings are civil in nature is well-supported. See, e.g. , I.C. § 19-5304(6) (stating that restitution awards are determined "upon the preponderance of the evidence"); I.C. § 19-5305(1) (explaining that restitution awards may be recorded and executed as a civil judgment); State v. McCool , 139 Idaho 804, 806, 87 P.3d 291, 293 (2004) (instructing that a restitution award "becomes, in essence, a civil judgment for the amount of such restitution"). We further emphasize that restitution "is separate and apart from a criminal sentence." Straub , 153 Idaho at 886, 292 P.3d at 277. Thus, restitution is remedial, not punitive; it serves to compensate victims for their losses. See I.C. § 19-5302 ; State v. Cottrell , 152 Idaho 387, 397, 271 P.3d 1243, 1253 (Ct. App. 2012). Because restitution proceedings are civil in nature, the fundamental error doctrine does not apply.

Since Wisdom...