State v. Canales ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 49331
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 2, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTOPHER RAY CANALES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.
Order revoking probation and directing execution of previously suspended
sentence, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
HUSKEY, Judge
Christopher Ray Canales appeals from the district court’s order revoking his probation and
executing his previously suspended sentence. Canales argues the district court’s finding that he
violated the terms of his probation is not supported by substantial and competent evidence and,
alternatively, the court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Because the district court did
not err in finding Canales violated the terms of his probation or abused its discretion in revoking
his probation, the order revoking Canales’ probation and executing his previously suspended
sentence is affirmed.
1
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2011, Canales pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence (DUI), third offense,
Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(5). The district court imposed a unified term of five years, with
three years determinate, but after a retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed
Canales on probation for five years.
In 2013, the State filed a report of probation violation. Canales admitted to violating the
terms of his probation by getting arrested for possession of marijuana and driving without
privileges and by using marijuana on the same date. The district court found Canales violated the
terms and conditions of his probation and continued him on probation for five years with additional
terms. In 2017, the State filed a report of probation violation alleging Canales violated the terms
of his probation by being charged with injury to a child, consuming alcohol, and failing to pay
fines, fees, restitution, and costs of his supervision. Canales admitted to the violations; the district
court found Canales violated the terms of his probation and continued him on probation for an
additional three years.
In 2020, the State filed another report of probation violation (initial report), alleging
Canales violated the terms of his probation by being cited in Montana for possession of marijuana
and drug paraphernalia, operating a car without liability insurance, and careless driving. The State
additionally alleged Canales violated the terms of his probation by operating a car without an
interlock device. Prior to a hearing on the alleged violations, the State filed an addendum to the
probation violation report (addendum report), alleging Canales violated the terms of his probation
by being cited in Bingham County, Idaho, for driving under the influence, possession of drug
paraphernalia, driving too closely, and failing to provide proof of insurance. The State additionally
alleged Canales violated the terms of his probation by consuming alcohol and failing to engage in
treatment, obtain permission prior to changing his residence, report to his probation officer, and
provide proof of installation of an interlock device.
The district court held a hearing on the alleged probation violations via Zoom. After
discussion with Canales, Canales’ counsel explained Canales would admit to the first allegation in
the addendum report (the first offense DUI and the two traffic infractions), as well as the
allegations that he failed to engage in treatment and failed to report to his probation officer on
August 2. For the remaining allegations, Canales would admit to two of the allegations in part and
2
deny the remaining three allegations. The State indicated it would proceed on the allegations
Canales agreed to admit and withdraw the remaining allegations.
The district court read the first probation allegation in the addendum report and asked
Canales whether he admitted or denied the allegation. Canales stated, “I know for sure I got a
first-offense DUI,” but he believed he “took care of” the two traffic infractions. While the district
court and Canales were discussing the traffic infractions, the Zoom connection was compromised
so the court continued the hearing to a later date indicating it would take the admissions at that
time. Before the next hearing, the State filed another addendum (second addendum report) to the
report of violation.
At the subsequent hearing, the district court proceeded to disposition and did not take
Canales’ admissions; neither the State nor Canales’ trial counsel objected. The district court
declined to address or consider the second addendum report at the disposition hearing. The district
court stated, “I’m just going to consider the probation violation report to which you entered
admissions last time we were on the Zoom hearing. Okay?” to which Canales responded, “Yes,
sir.” The district court continued, noting Canales had not performed well while on probation and
had been on probation for the maximum period of time authorized by law. Accordingly, the district
court found that if it wanted to impose any consequences as a result of Canales’ behavior during
probation, its only choice was to revoke probation and impose the underlying sentence. The
district court entered an order revoking Canales’ probation and executing the previously suspended
sentence. Canales timely appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Review of a probation revocation proceeding involves a two-step analysis. State v. Garner,
161 Idaho 708, 710, 390 P.3d 434, 436 (2017). We first determine whether the terms of probation
have been violated. Id. Because a trial court may revoke probation only upon evidence that the
probationer has violated probation, a court’s finding that a violation has been proved will be upheld
on appeal if there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding. State v. Knutsen,
138 Idaho 918, 923, 71 P.3d 1065, 1070 (Ct. App. 2003). The State bears the burden of providing
satisfactory proof of a violation, though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. State v.
Edelblute, 91 Idaho 469, 480, 424 P.2d 739, 750 (1967).
3
If substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding of a probation violation, we then
determine whether the violation justifies revocation of the probation. Garner, 161 Idaho at 710,
390 P.3d at 436. With regard to this second step, the decision whether to revoke a defendant’s
probation for a violation is within the discretion of the trial court. Knutsen, 138 Idaho at 923, 71
P.3d at 1070. Thus, we review a trial court’s decision to revoke probation under an abuse of
discretion standard. Id. When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the
appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly
perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion;
(3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and
(4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d
149, 158 (2018).
III.
ANALYSIS
Canales alleges the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation is not
supported by substantial and competent evidence because the court never “formally accepted” his
admission to a probation violation. Alternatively, Canales argues the district court abused its
discretion when it revoked his probation and executed the underlying sentence. In response, the
State contends the district court did not err.
A. District Court’s Finding of a Probation Violation Is Supported by Substantial and
Competent Evidence
Canales alleges the district court’s finding that he violated the terms of his probation is not
supported by substantial and competent evidence because the court never “formally accepted” his
admission to a probation violation. We disagree.
Idaho Criminal Rule 33(f) prohibits a court from revoking probation “unless there is an
admission by the defendant or a finding by the court, following a hearing, that the defendant
willfully violated a condition of probation.” However, nothing in I.C.R. 33(f) requires a trial court
to “formally accept” a defendant’s admission to a probation violation in order for the court’s
finding of a probation violation to be supported by substantial and competent evidence, and
Canales does not cite to any authority holding as such in support of this argument.
While it is true that in other contexts a trial court provides a colloquy to ensure that a
defendant’s guilty plea meets various constitutional standards, in this case Canales explicitly
4
declines to pursue a constitutional claim on appeal or assert that his probation violation admission
was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Thus, while whether the district court
formally accepted Canales’ admission would be relevant to a due process argument, because
Canales expressly declines to make a due process argument on appeal, we decline to import a due
process analysis into the “substantial evidence” standard set forth above.
Instead, we will address whether there is substantial evidence supporting the district court’s
conclusion that Canales admitted to violating a term of his probation. “[S]ubstantial and competent
evidence exists if there is evidence in the record that a reasonable trier of fact could accept and
rely upon in making the factual finding challenged on appeal.” State v. Ish, 166 Idaho 492, 509,
461 P.3d 774, 791 (2020).
At the beginning of the probation violation admit/deny hearing, the district court noted it
waited to set the hearing until the Bingham County DUI was resolved. The court understood that
a judgment of conviction had been entered against Canales for that DUI and Canales’ counsel
confirmed that the district court’s understanding was correct. Canales’ counsel then asked the
district court for a moment to speak with Canales privately about how they were going to proceed.
After discussion with Canales, Canales’ counsel told the district court Canales was prepared to
admit to the associated probation violation for this conviction. The district court then read
verbatim the first probation violation allegation in the addendum report:
Court: It says on August 1 of 2020, you were involved in an accident in
Blackfoot[1] and were cited with driving under the influence, drug
paraphernalia, failure to provide proof of insurance, and driving too
closely. They list the case numbers there.
Do you admit that you pled guilty or were found guilty of driving under
the influence, the drug paraphernalia was dismissed, and that you pled
guilty or were found guilty of failure to provide proof of insurance and
driving too closely?
Canales: Yes, sir. Because like I said, I’m not--like I know for sure I got a first-
offense DUI and they did drop the possession. I’m not for sure--I don’t
know for sure per se if I got a no-insurance ticket or a following too
closely, but for sure on the DUI. I don’t know if you see it on your end.
Court: Okay. Well, I thought you were going to admit the following too closely
and--
Canales: No. No. No. I am. I am. Sorry.
(Cross talk.)
Canales: I am. I’m sorry.
1
Blackfoot is a city located in Bingham County, Idaho.
5
Court: As the state of the record is on the iCourt system, it says you defaulted
a following-too-close infraction and a no-insurance infraction in 2020.
Canales: Okay.
Court: And those defaults mean you didn’t show up for court and they just
entered judgment against you.
So does that sound right to you?
Canales: Was that here in Bingham County?
Court: Bingham County. Yes, sir.
Canales: I believe so, because I was unaware of it. So I took care of it I thought,
but . . .
Court: Well, are you admitting you didn’t take care of it or not?
Canales: No. I did take care of it. Yes, I did. Sorry.
Court: You did or did not take care of it?
Canales: I did take care of it.
Court: We’re having a hard time understanding you. Did or did not?
Canales: I did.
After Canales again said he thought he had taken care of the two infractions, the district
court continued the hearing, stating:
Court: I’m going to set you for admissions and dispositions--and disposition on
this on November 22[2] at 8:30 in the morning.
Canales: Okay.
Court: And you have to appear in person here at the courthouse for that
admission and disposition hearing.
Canales: Okay.
Court: The sound system here is such that I can’t understand you. I’m not sure
if you’re understanding me, but we are going to just move this to--those
things that you’re going to admit to, the State will withdraw some of
those things you’re denying, and then we’ll do the disposition then. But
we’ll do it here in the courtroom on November 22nd so,--
Canales: Okay.
....
Court: [W]e’ll have you come in and we’ll take your admissions, and the State
will dismiss those things that you are going to deny, and we will do
disposition on that day.
From this exchange, the record demonstrates Canales admitted on the record that he had
violated the terms of his probation by being convicted of DUI in Bingham Country while on
probation. The only confusion was whether Canales had defaulted on the two infractions. In
addition to Canales’ admission, the district court could see that a judgment of conviction was
entered in Bingham County against Canales for DUI and Canales’ counsel confirmed that Canales
2
The district court subsequently moved the date to November 24, 2021.
6
had been convicted of that offense. Accordingly, the district court’s finding that Canales was
convicted of a DUI and, thus, violated the terms of his probation, is supported by substantial and
competent evidence.
B. The District Court Did Not Err in Revoking Canales’ Probation and Imposing the
Underlying Sentence
Canales also alleges the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation and
executing his previously suspended sentence because “proper consideration of the information that
was before the district court supported his request to be released back onto probation.”
Specifically, Canales argues the revocation of his probation was an abuse of discretion because he
had been participating in misdemeanor probation for his DUI conviction in Bingham County
without any violations, had been doing community service, and was planning on attending any
evaluations requested by his probation officer.3
In determining whether to revoke probation a trial court must examine whether
the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society.
State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho
324, 325, 834 P.2d 325, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (1988).
The court may, after a probation violation has been established, order that the suspended sentence
be executed or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under I.C.R. 35 to reduce the sentence.
Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316
(Ct. App. 1989). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing
that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327. In reviewing
the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial
court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct.
App. 2012). Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the record before the trial court relevant
to the revocation of probation issues which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id.3
Canales additionally alleges the district court “may” have based its decision to revoke his
probation on the November 2021 addendum and on its unsupported belief that Canales had been
driving prior to both probation violation hearings. However, the district court expressly stated it
would not consider the November 2021 addendum, accepted Canales’ assertion that he had not
driven to his previous court hearing, and stated it did not want Canales to admit if he drove to the
November 24, 2021, hearing. As such, we do not find that the district court considered this
information when deciding to revoke Canales probation and will not address these contentions
further.
7
To the extent Canales’ assertion that “proper consideration of the information that was
before the district court supported his request to be released back onto probation” is a request to
re-weigh the evidence presented on appeal, we decline to do so. See State v. Clark, 168 Idaho 503,
507, 484 P.3d 187, 191 (2021) (where there is competent evidence to sustain verdict, this Court
will not reweigh that evidence). However, to the extent that Canales’ argument is an allegation
that based on the record before it, the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation, we
disagree.
The record before the district court showed that throughout his almost ten years on
probation, Canales continued to violate the terms of his probation and engage in criminal activity.
In 2013, two years after being released on probation from his period of retained jurisdiction,
Canales violated the terms of his probation by being cited for possessing marijuana and driving
without privileges. Four years later, in 2017, Canales violated the terms of his probation by being
charged with injury to a child, consuming alcohol, and failing to pay fines, fees, restitution, and
the costs of his supervision. Then in 2020, Canales violated the terms of his probation by
committing a DUI.
In addition to these probation violations, the district court took judicial notice of other
criminal behavior for which Canales’ probation officer did not file probation violation reports:
driving without privileges conviction in 2012; two driving without privileges convictions in 2013;
two driving without privileges convictions in 2014; driving with an expired license conviction in
2016; failure to notify of striking a fixture on the highway conviction and failure to purchase a
driver’s license in 2017; driving without a license, failing to provide proof of insurance, and
possession of drug paraphernalia in 2018; failure to provide proof of insurance, driving without a
license, and a speeding ticket in 2019; DUI, no insurance, following too close, and driving without
a license in 2020; and later in 2020 another driving without privileges. Taking this information
into account, the district court explained Canales had done “a crummy probation, the worst I’ve
seen in terms of probation officer’s follow-up”; “[t]he fact that you got the DUI is first and
foremost in my mind”; and driving under the influence “puts you and everybody on the highway
at risk. You’re going to drive no matter what I do.” The district court noted it had to:
look at protection of society, your rehabilitation obviously didn’t take place on this
probation, deterrence of you and others, and the need for punishment. The need for
punishment has been hanging over your head the whole time. You were not
deterred by anything that happened with probation.
8
So it’s going to be the judgment of the Court that I’m going to impose
sentence at this time.
Taking into account the record before it, the district court found probation had not served
either of the goals of rehabilitation or protection of society. The district court found Canales was
not deterred from his criminal behavior throughout his probation and Canales continued to drive
in violation of Idaho laws, including driving while under the influence of alcohol which put society
at risk. As such, the district court properly weighed the factors guiding its decision and found that
the protection of society, rehabilitation, deterrence, and the need for punishment supported its
decision to revoke Canales’ probation and impose the underlying sentence.4 The district court
acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it and reached
its decision by an exercise of reason. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in
revoking Canales’ probation and executing the previously suspended sentence.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Substantial and competent evidence supports the district court’s finding that Canales
violated the terms of his probation, and the district court did not abuse its discretion by revoking
his probation. The order revoking probation and directing execution of Canales’ previously
suspended sentence is affirmed.
Chief Judge LORELLO and Judge BRAILSFORD CONCUR.
4
While we note the district court stated Canales had “entered admissions” at the previous
Zoom hearing even though Canales admitted to only a single allegation--driving under the
influence in Bingham County. However, only one probation violation is required for a trial court
to revoke a defendant’s probation, see State v. Ross, 170 Idaho 58, 62, 507 P.3d 545, 549 (2022)
(holding to revoke defendant’s probation, it must be proved that a violation of terms of probation
has occurred), and it is clear from the record that the district court would have revoked probation
based on Canales’ admission to driving under the influence in Bingham Country.
9