United States v. Gutierrez (In re Order Certifying Question to the Supreme Court of Idaho)
| Decision Date | 03 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48454 |
| Citation | 169 Idaho 135,492 P.3d 1094 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | IN RE: ORDER CERTIFYING QUESTION TO the SUPREME COURT OF IDAHO. United States of America, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Antonio Francisco Gutierrez, Defendant-Appellant. |
Hendrickson Law Firm, P.C., Billings, MT, attorney for Appellant, Antonio Gutierrez. Desi Seal argued.
United States Attorney's Office, Boise, attorney for Respondent, United States of America. Syrena Hargrove argued.
Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (IACDL), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (ISAA), Federal Defender Services of Idaho (FDSI), and the Federal Defenders of Eastern Washington and Idaho (FDEWI), attorneys for Amicus Curiae.
This matter comes to the Idaho Supreme Court as a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The question certified is:
Whether an Idaho state court order reducing the defendant's judgment of conviction for felony burglary to a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor petit theft under the authority of Idaho Code § 19-2604(2) changes the operative conviction for the purposes of Idaho Code § 18-310, which prohibits the restoration of firearm rights to those citizens convicted of specific felony offenses? See Idaho Code § 18-310(2).
Based on the plain language of Idaho Code section 19-2604 the answer to the Ninth Circuit's question is no. A grant of leniency under Idaho Code section 19-2604(2) does not remove a defendant originally convicted of an enumerated felony from the reach of section 18-310(2) and (3).
In 2019, Antonio Gutierrez was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Montana on four charges: (I) conspiracy to commit robbery affecting commerce ( 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) ); (II) robbery affecting commerce ( 18 U.S.C. 1951 § (a)); (III) possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence ( 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) ); and (IV) felon in possession of a firearm ( 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ). These charges resulted from a robbery of Dotty's Casino in Billings, Montana, that involved a firearm.
The felon in possession of a firearm charge stemmed from Gutierrez's previous convictions under Idaho state law for burglary. In 2000, Gutierrez pleaded guilty to two counts of felony burglary. He was sentenced to the Idaho State Correctional Institution for a fixed term of two years and a subsequent indeterminate term of three years. On October 29, 2003, acting pursuant to Idaho Code section 19-2604(2), an Idaho district court ordered Gutierrez's burglary convictions "REDUCED to Misdemeanor Petit Theft." (Capitalization in original). The order specified that Gutierrez was "not to be considered a convicted felon because he has successfully complied with the terms and conditions of probation and paid all restitution/reimbursement and fines in full."
Before trial on his federal charges, the Government dismissed the conspiracy count and Gutierrez moved to dismiss the felon in possession of a firearm count because his judgment of conviction for burglary had been reduced to misdemeanor petit theft. The federal district court denied Gutierrez's motion, holding that his final discharge did not restore his firearm rights because he had been convicted of an enumerated offense under Idaho Code section 18-310(2), and he had not filed an application with the commission of pardons and parole to have his rights restored pursuant to section 18-310(3). United States v. Gutierrez , 2018 WL 3611753, at *2 (D. Mont. July 27, 2018). After a jury trial, Gutierrez was convicted on the remaining three counts, including the felon-in-possession charge under 18 § U.S.C. 922(g).
Gutierrez appealed his conviction to the Ninth Circuit, asserting that the district court erred in determining that he was a felon prohibited from possessing any firearms. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that to determine whether a defendant has a qualifying "conviction" under § 922(g), federal courts must look to state law. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20) (). If a federal defendant's firearm rights have been restored by operation of state law, his state law conviction is invalidated for the purposes of § 922(g). Van der Hule v. Holder , 759 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2014). The Ninth Circuit recognized that the Idaho Supreme Court has not determined whether a reduction of a judgment of conviction for a particular felony offense to a judgment of conviction for a misdemeanor offense under Idaho Code section 19-2604(2), alters the operative judgment of conviction for the purposes of Idaho Code section 18-310. Thus, the Ninth Circuit certified the question to this Court.
Whether an Idaho state court order reducing the defendant's judgment of conviction for felony burglary to a judgment of conviction for misdemeanor petit theft under the authority of Idaho Code § 19-2604(2) changes the operative conviction for the purposes of Idaho Code § 18-310, which prohibits the restoration of firearm rights to those citizens convicted of specific felony offenses? See Idaho Code § 18-310(2).
Courts of the United States may certify a controlling question of law in a pending action to the Idaho Supreme Court where there is no controlling precedent in Idaho Supreme Court decisions and the determination would materially advance the orderly resolution of the litigation in the United States court. I.A.R. 12.3(a). This Court's role "is limited to answering the certified question" when the question presented is narrow. Doe v. Boy Scouts of Am ., 159 Idaho 103, 105, 356 P.3d 1049, 1051 (2015) (quoting Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc ., 113 Idaho 374, 375, 744 P.2d 102, 103 (1987) ) ( that "to now decide [extraneous matters] would result in an advisory opinion on a question not certified."). This Court exercises free review over questions of law. Harrigfeld v. Hancock , 140 Idaho 134, 136, 90 P.3d 884, 886 (2004). "[T]he interpretation of a statute is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review." State v. Gomez-Alas , 167 Idaho 857, 861, 477 P.3d 911, 915 (2020) (quoting State v. Osborn , 165 Idaho 627, 629, 449 P.3d 419, 421 (2019) ).
A. Gutierrez's right to possess a firearm was not automatically restored when the district court amended his felony burglary conviction to a misdemeanor under Idaho Code section 19-2604(2) based on the plain language of the statute.
This case hinges on the interpretation and interplay between two statutes:
Idaho Code section 19-2604 and Idaho Code section 18-310. Idaho Code section 19-2604 provides a mechanism for a court to amend a defendant's prior criminal judgments and convictions. Subsection (1) empowers courts in some cases to set aside a defendant's guilty plea and dismiss the entire case—which "shall have the effect of restoring the defendant to his civil rights." Subsection (2) allows district courts to amend certain felony convictions to misdemeanors. Importantly, section 19-2604(2), which references sentences where the district court retains jurisdiction for up to 365 days while the defendant serves time in an Idaho Department of Corrections treatment program known colloquially as a "rider," is silent as to the restoration of a defendant's civil rights. Whether to grant a motion to amend under Idaho Code section 19-2604(2) rests within the discretion of the district court. State v. Mowrey , 134 Idaho 751, 753, 9 P.3d 1217, 1219 (2000) ; State v. Wiedmeier , 121 Idaho 189, 191, 824 P.2d 120, 122 (1992).
Idaho Code section 18-310 governs restoration of civil rights—including firearm rights—to individuals convicted of Idaho crimes. The general rule is that "upon final discharge, a person convicted of any Idaho felony shall be restored the full rights of citizenship." I.C. § 18-310(2). That said, for individuals convicted of certain enumerated felony offenses, including burglary, section 18-310(2) bars automatic restoration of "the right to ship, transport, possess, or receive a firearm[.]" For those individuals, section 18-310 provides a separate mechanism for firearm restoration: five years after final discharge of their sentence, a person convicted of an enumerated felony "may make application to the commission of pardons and parole to restore the civil right to ship, transport, possess or receive a firearm." I.C. § 18-310(3).
The original Idaho district court order specified that Gutierrez's conviction was "REDUCED to Misdemeanor Petit Theft." The order stated that Gutierrez was "not to be considered a convicted felon because he has successfully complied with the terms and conditions of probation and paid all restitution/reimbursement and fines in full." Based on this order, Gutierrez argues the United States district court erroneously denied his motion to dismiss the "felon in possession of a firearm" charge because his felony conviction no longer existed. Although U.S.C. § 922(g) is commonly referred to as the "felon in possession" statute, it does not turn eligibility for prosecution on a defendant's felony status, per se, but on whether a defendant's firearm rights have been suspended. See Van der Hule v. Holder , 759 F.3d 1043, 1046 (9th Cir. 2014).
Gutierrez argues that although it concerned Idaho Code section 19-2604(1) instead of subsection (2), his situation is akin to the defendant in Manners v. State Board of Veterinary Medicine , 107 Idaho 950, 694 P.2d 1298 (1985). In Manners , a veterinarian was charged with the felony crime of delivery of a controlled substance. 107 Idaho at 951, 694 P.2d at 1299. Manners entered a guilty plea and the district court later suspended his sentence and placed him on...
To continue reading
Request your trial