State v. Keith Duane Cunningham ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 39566
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )      2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 759
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )      Filed: December 14, 2012
    )
    v.                                               )      Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    KEITH DUANE CUNNINGHAM,                          )      THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )      OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                      )      BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
    County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.
    Order denying motion to dismiss withheld judgment, affirmed; order denying
    motion to reconsider, affirmed.
    Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy
    Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
    Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
    ________________________________________________
    GUTIERREZ, Judge
    Keith Duane Cunningham appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion to
    dismiss his withheld judgment and denying his motion to reconsider.
    I.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    Cunningham pled guilty to statutory rape. In 2002, the district court granted a withheld
    judgment and ordered Cunningham to seven years of probation. In 2011, Cunningham filed a
    motion to dismiss his withheld judgment, specifically noting he had complied with the terms of
    his probation and that it would be in the best interest of society if the case was dismissed. After
    a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Cunningham subsequently filed a motion to
    reconsider, which the district court also denied. Cunningham appeals.
    1
    II.
    ANALYSIS
    Where a withheld judgment has been granted, the district court has discretion to dismiss
    the case and discharge the defendant. 
    Idaho Code § 19-2604
    ; State v. Wiedmeier, 
    121 Idaho 189
    ,
    191, 
    824 P.2d 120
    , 122 (1992). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on
    appeal, the appellate court conducts a three-prong inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower
    court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within
    the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the
    specific choices before it; and (3) whether the lower court reached its decision by an exercise of
    reason. State v. Hedger, 
    115 Idaho 598
    , 600, 
    768 P.2d 1331
    , 1333 (1989). A motion for
    reconsideration is reviewed under the same abuse of discretion standard. State v. Montague, 
    114 Idaho 319
    , 320, 
    756 P.2d 1083
    , 1084 (Ct. App. 1988).
    In his appeal, Cunningham concedes that under current law, “any offense requiring sex
    offender registration as set forth in section 18-8304, Idaho Code, shall not be subject to dismissal
    or reduction . . . .” I.C. § 19-2604. Statutory rape, a violation of 
    Idaho Code § 18-6101
    , is an
    offense that requires sex offender registration under section 18-8304. When Cunningham pled
    guilty to statutory rape in 2001, section 19-2604(1) did not preclude him from applying for
    dismissal of his withheld judgment. The trial court had discretion to grant dismissal upon a
    satisfactory showing the defendant had “at all times complied with the terms and conditions upon
    which he was placed on probation” and upon the trial court’s findings that there was “no longer
    cause for continuing the period of probation” and that granting dismissal was “compatible with
    the public interest.” I.C. § 19-2604 (2001) (amended 2006). In July 2006, section 19-2604 was
    amended to preclude dismissal for individuals who have been convicted of offenses requiring sex
    offender registration. 2002 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 157, § 1.
    The Idaho Supreme Court has held that the amendment to section 19-2604 retroactively
    applies to defendants who pled guilty prior to when the amendment took effect on July 1, 2006,
    and does not violate ex post facto laws. State v. Forbes, 
    152 Idaho 849
    , 
    275 P.3d 864
     (2012);
    State v. Hardwick, 
    150 Idaho 580
    , 
    249 P.3d 379
     (2011). The Court stated the Legislature
    intended the amendment to apply to offenders who had already been granted a withheld
    judgment, as is the case here. Forbes, 
    152 Idaho at 851
    , 275 P.2d at 866; Hardwick, 
    150 Idaho at 582-83
    , 
    249 P.3d at 381-82
    .
    2
    Although Cunningham concedes the law does not allow dismissal of his withheld
    judgment, he contends “the law should not apply to him because that was not the agreement he
    had with the State of Idaho when he entered into lawful probation contracts for several years
    with this State.” As the State points out, Cunningham offers no basis for overruling controlling
    precedent and provides no legal authority supporting the proposition that his contract with the
    State entitles him to dismissal of the withheld judgment.
    The district court correctly perceived the motion to dismiss the withheld judgment as one
    of discretion. More particularly, under the second prong of the abuse of discretion standard, the
    district court relied on Idaho Supreme Court precedent interpreting section 19-2604 in
    determining the bounds of the court’s discretion. We find no abuse of discretion by the district
    court either in denying Cunningham’s motion to dismiss his withheld judgment or in denying
    Cunningham’s motion for reconsideration.
    III.
    CONCLUSION
    We affirm the district court’s orders denying Cunningham’s motion to dismiss his
    withheld judgment and denying Cunningham’s motion to reconsider.
    Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LANSING CONCUR.
    3
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 12/14/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021