State v. Ruiz ( 2023 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 49877
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
)
ESEQUIEL A. RUIZ, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Javier Gabiola, District Judge.
Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
GRATTON, Judge
Esequiel A. Ruiz appeals from the district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction. Ruiz
argues that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction without explanation
and without a jurisdictional review hearing. The State argues that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction because it had sufficient information to determine that
probation would be inappropriate.
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Ruiz was observed stealing packages from doorsteps. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Ruiz
pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code § 18-2407(1)(b)(9). The district court sentenced Ruiz to a
unified term of eight years with four years determinate and placed him on probation.
Subsequently, Ruiz admitted to violating his probation. The district court revoked probation,
1
executed the original sentence, and retained jurisdiction. A program manager with the North Idaho
Corrections Institute recommended Ruiz be placed on supervised probation and Ruiz signed an
agreement of supervision. Ruiz did not request a jurisdictional review hearing. The district court
relinquished jurisdiction. Ruiz appeals from the district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish
jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will
not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712,
639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990).
When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a
multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial 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
Ruiz argues that the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold a rider review
hearing or otherwise explain its decision to relinquish jurisdiction where the rider staff
recommended probation; the prosecutor did not object to the recommendation; Ruiz signed an
agreement of supervision in anticipation of being placed on probation; and the district court was
notified by the rider staff of Ruiz’s availability for a rider review hearing. The State argues that
good performance on a rider alone cannot show that a district court abused its discretion by
relinquishing jurisdiction, nor can declining to follow a recommendation from the program
manager. Additionally, the State argues that the district court is not required to provide an
explanation for relinquishing jurisdiction.
As a threshold matter, Ruiz asks this Court to require the district court to provide an
explanation when it relinquishes jurisdiction, particularly when the recommendation from the
retained jurisdiction program manager was probation. We decline to do so. Ruiz cites no case law
that requires the district court to provide such an explanation. Rather, there is case law that
supports the contrary position. State v. Statton, 136 Idaho 135, 137, 30 P.3d 290, 292 (2001). The
2
Idaho Supreme Court in Statton held that a defendant is not required to have a hearing before
jurisdiction is relinquished. Id. The Idaho appellate courts have neither required a hearing nor an
explanation of the reasons for relinquishment from the trial court. Ruiz asserts a belief that the
district court may have made a mistake in relinquishing jurisdiction over him. In addition, he
contends that because of the holdings in State v. Flores, 162 Idaho 298, 396 P.3d 1180 (2017) and
State v. Reilly, 169 Idaho 801, 503 P.3d 1017 (Ct. App. 2021), he had no recourse in the district
court in the event the district court mistakenly relinquished jurisdiction. First, Ruiz claims that he
expected to get a rider review hearing but did not request one. Second, Ruiz essentially asks this
Court to speculate that the district court did not give due consideration to the relinquishment
decision. There is no evidence in the record to show that the district court abused its discretion by
mistakenly relinquishing jurisdiction. While Ruiz contends the district court abused its discretion,
he acknowledges that “it is impossible to say from the record before this Court.”
Next, we address whether the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing
jurisdiction. In State v. Hansen, 154 Idaho 882, 889, 303 P.3d 241, 248 (Ct. App. 2013), the Court
held: “A court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be deemed an abuse of discretion if
the trial court has sufficient information to determine that a suspended sentence and probation
would be inappropriate.” The record indicates that the district court had sufficient information to
determine that a suspended sentence and probation would be inappropriate. We recognize that the
rider program manager recommended probation. But, good performance on a rider does not alone
demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the district judge’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction.
Statton, 136 Idaho at 137, 30 P.3d at 292. A probation recommendation is not binding on the
district court. Moreover, Ruiz had five written warnings, one incident, and three infractions while
on his rider. The record before the district court also included: (1) that Ruiz admitted to violating
the terms of probation, including a domestic incident with his wife, and by failing to take his mental
health medications and complete domestic violence treatment; (2) the probation officer’s
conclusion, prior to Ruiz’s rider, that Ruiz had reverted to past behaviors and failed to address his
criminal thinking, mental health, and anger issues; and (3) Ruiz’s substantial criminal history,
including arson, battery, assault, theft, and resisting. Considering the information available, the
district court could appropriately determine that probation was not the appropriate course of action
in Ruiz’s case. The district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
3
IV.
CONCLUSION
Ruiz has failed to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, we affirm
the district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction.
Chief Judge LORELLO and Judge HUSKEY CONCUR.
4