State v. Leonard ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 49692
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
GARY JAMES LEONARD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Boundary County. Hon. Barbara Buchanan, District Judge. Hon. Justin W. Julian,
Magistrate.
Decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal from the magistrate court,
affirming judgment of conviction for exceeding the maximum posted speed limit,
affirmed.
Gary James Leonard, Bonners Ferry, pro se appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Andrew V. Wake, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
LORELLO, Chief Judge
Gary James Leonard appeals from the decision of the district court, on intermediate appeal
from the magistrate court, affirming Leonard’s judgment of conviction for exceeding the
maximum posted speed limit. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
An officer issued a traffic citation to Leonard for driving a vehicle at 46 mph on a road
with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The magistrate court held a bench trial at which Leonard
represented himself pro se. While testifying, he asserted that he “did not believe that the posted
speed limit is the actual correct speed limit for that road” because the county had not “perform[ed]
1
an engineering or traffic investigation,” which Leonard asserted was required by statute. The
magistrate court construed the argument presented during his testimony as a motion to dismiss and
denied the motion. Ultimately, the magistrate court found that Leonard committed the traffic
infraction. Leonard appealed to the district court, which affirmed. Leonard again appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
For an appeal from the district court, sitting in its appellate capacity over a case from the
magistrate court, we review the record to determine whether there is substantial and competent
evidence to support the magistrate court’s findings of fact and whether the magistrate court’s
conclusions of law follow from those findings. State v. Korn, 148 Idaho 413, 415, 224 P.3d 480,
482 (2009). However, as a matter of appellate procedure, our disposition of the appeal will affirm
or reverse the decision of the district court. State v. Trusdall, 155 Idaho 965, 968, 318 P.3d 955,
958 (Ct. App. 2014). Thus, we review the magistrate court’s findings and conclusions, whether
the district court affirmed or reversed the magistrate court and the basis therefor, and either affirm
or reverse the district court.
III.
ANALYSIS
Leonard asserts that “Boundary County Ordinance 73-2, ordained and signed in 1973,
became invalid and outside the Idaho State Constitution Article XII[,] [Section] 2 on or prior to
1987 due to changes in Idaho Code Title 49.”1 The State responds that Leonard forfeited this
argument because he “has not cited or applied any standard of review” and that, in any event, the
argument is unpreserved because Leonard failed to raise it to the magistrate court.2 Because
Leonard failed to preserve the constitutional argument he now advances on appeal, we affirm.
The State, relying on State v. Kralovec, 161 Idaho 569, 388 P.3d 583 (2017), and
Cummings v. Stephens, 160 Idaho 847, 380 P.3d 168 (2016), asserts that, “if an appellant fails to
1
This ordinance is not in the appellate record.
2
The State also asserts that “the district court addressed and correctly rejected the argument
Leonard did make before the magistrate court.” We do not interpret Leonard’s appellate briefing
as raising this issue and, thus, we will not address this aspect of the State’s argument further.
2
articulate or provide analysis relating to the relevant standard of review, the appellant’s argument
is conclusory[,] which is fatally deficient to the appeal.” Since Kralovec and Cummings, however,
the Idaho Supreme Court has disavowed an interpretation of Idaho case law that would require “a
formalistic recitation of the standard of review” and observed that the “real concern of this Court
is whether an appellant’s arguments are supported with relevant argument and authority.” State v.
Jeske, 164 Idaho 862, 870, 436 P.3d 683, 691 (2019). Although Leonard fails to cite to the standard
of review applicable to decisions by a district court on intermediate appeal, he has provided
adequate argument and authority. Leonard cites to Article XII, Section 2, of the Idaho
Constitution, which provides that “any county or incorporated city or town may make and enforce,
within its limits, all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its
charter or with the general laws.” He also relies on State v. Young, 144 Idaho 646, 650, 167 P.3d
783, 787 (Ct. App. 2006), which identified three restrictions on the authority of a county,
incorporated city, or town stemming from Article XII, Section 2, of the Idaho Constitution. One
such restriction is that an ordinance must not be in conflict with other general laws of the State.
State v. Clark, 88 Idaho 365, 374, 399 P.2d 955, 960 (1965). In light of Leonard’s argument that
certain statutes invalidated the Boundary County ordinance, we conclude that his failure to cite the
correct standard of review is not fatal to his appeal.
We agree, however, that Leonard failed to present his constitutional challenge to the
magistrate court. When a party appeals a decision to the district court, the party may only raise
issues that it presented to the magistrate court because, generally, issues not raised below may not
be considered for the first time on appeal. See I.C.R. 54(f)(1); State v. Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195,
824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992). Further, when a party appeals the decision of an intermediate appellate
court, the appellant may not raise issues that are different from those presented to the intermediate
court. State v. Sheahan, 139 Idaho 267, 275, 77 P.3d 956, 964 (2003). Leonard asserts that “the
constitutionality of the ordinance was challenged multiple times throughout the submitted briefs
and through oral arguments,” and provides citations to the record. His citations, however, show
that he raised a constitutional challenge for the first time in his reply brief on intermediate appeal
and during his oral argument to the district court, which is not sufficient to preserve the issue he
now asserts on appeal. Our review of the record reveals that Leonard never raised his
3
constitutional challenge to the magistrate court. Because Leonard failed to preserve this issue for
appeal, we will not consider whether the Boundary County ordinance is unconstitutional.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Leonard failed to preserve his constitutional challenge to the Boundary County ordinance
and, thus, has failed to show error. Accordingly, the decision of the district court, on intermediate
appeal from the magistrate court, affirming Leonard’s judgment of conviction for exceeding the
maximum posted speed limit is affirmed.
Judge GRATTON and Judge BRAILSFORD, CONCUR.
4