1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36119

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.
JONATHAN GEORGE PLASTER, JR. , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2010 Unpub lished Opinion No. 582

Filed: August 9, 2010
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial Dis trict, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree , District Judge.

Order granting motion in limine and judgments of conviction and sentences, affirmed

. Molly J. Hus key, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for responde nt.

________________________________________________ GRATTON, Judge Jonathan George Plaster, Jr., appeals from his judgment s of conviction entered upon conditional guilty pleas to seven counts of lewd conduct with a chil d under the age of sixteen, Idaho Code § 18

- 1508 , and one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years
, I.C. § 18

- 1506 . We affirm.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2005, Plaster was charged with two counts of lewd conduct with a child under the age of sixteen and one count of sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years. The parties reached a plea agreement and the district court agreed to be bound by it, pursuant to
Idaho Criminal Rule 11. Plaster entered a conditional Alf ord 1 plea of guilty to one count of lewd

1 See North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 (1970).2

conduct, reserving his right to appeal the denial of a suppression motion. The district court, after accepting Plaster’s plea
, ordered a psychosexual evaluation. Although the plea agreement was binding, the agreem ent provided that both parties could present evidence in aggravation and mitigation at sentencing
, in order to provide the Parole Commission with information to consider
at such time as Plaster would bec o me eligible for release on parole. As part of the psychosexual evaluation, Plaster was advised that he had the right to remain silent, that anything he said could and would be used against him, that he had the right to have an attorney present during the assessment, and that he had the right to stop answe ring questions at any time. Plaster indicated that he understood each of these rights, agreed to waive the rights
, and signed a form spelling out those rights. During the psychosexual evaluation,
Plaster admitted to sex crimes against the three victims i n addition to those acts charged in the original information. Prior to sentencing, Plaster filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the district court granted. Thereafter, in January 2008, the State charged Plaster with eight counts of lewd

con duct and two counts of sexual abuse in a separate case. 2 These charges also involved the three victims alleged in the 2005 case which Plaster had discussed in the psychosexual evaluation. Prior to trial in the 2008 case, the State filed a notice of inten t to offer evidence of
confession at trial
, and a motion in limine requesting that the district court rule on the admissibility of Plaster’s statements made during the psychosexual evaluation. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and entere d a memorandum decision ruling that Plaster’s statements made during the psychosexual evaluation would be admissible at trial. The 2005 and
2008 cases were consolidated for trial. Plaster entered an Alford plea of guilty to all of the
counts set forth in the 2008 case, seven counts of lewd conduct and one count of sexual abuse, and the State agreed to dismiss the 2005 case. Plaster reserved his right to appeal the district court’s decision regarding the motion in limine
, but waived all other appellate cl aims. This appeal followed.

2 The State later filed an amended information alleging seven counts of lewd conduct and one count of sexual abuse.3 II.
ANALYSIS Plaster’s contention on appeal is as follows: Mindful of the fact that Mr. Plaster’s participation in the psychosexual evaluation in the First Case was not required as part of the plea agreement with the State and would not factor into his sentence in any way, and mindful of the fact that Mr. Plaster moved to withdraw his plea and, thereby, knowingly withdrew from his plea agreement with the State, Mr. Plaster nevertheless contends that, because the admissions made during the psychosexual evaluation were made in reliance on the original plea agreement, it was fundamentally unfair for the district court to have ruled that the State could use those admissions against him even after the plea agreement had been vacated.
Plaster asserts only fundamental unfairness in admitting evidence of the statements made during the psychosexual evaluation. Plaster cites no Idaho precedent regarding application of fundamental fairness principles to the decision to admit or deny evide nce. Aside from the statement quoted above, Plaster makes no argument as to how the admission of the evidence would be fundamentally unfair or how the district court erred in its analysis of this issue

. Instead, Plaster cites, as “c f.” two cases, United States v. Ventura

- Cruel , 356 F.3d 55, 62

- 64 (1st Cir. 2003) and United States v. Escamilla , 975 F.2d 568, 571

- 72 (9th Cir. 1992).
In Ventura

- Cruel

, pursuant to a plea agreement, Ventura

- Cruel was required to provide complete and truthful information about his crime and involvement in a drug conspiracy. In order to receive a reduction in sentence, Ventura

- Cruel had to accept responsibility and provide incriminating information. The court advised him at the change of plea hearing that he was waiving his rig ht against self

- incrimination. Thereafter, Ventura

- Cruel wrote a confession letter to his probation officer. Ventura

- Cruel did not ask to withdraw his guilty plea, but the district court later rejected his guilty plea. The district court allowed the let ter into evidence. The appellate court determined that, based upon the facts, allowing the letter into evidence would be fundamentally unfair. V entura

- Cruel had reasonably relied on the existence of the plea agreement before making his admissions. In fa ct, he had been advised that he ha d waived his right against self

- incrimination and had been, by the terms of the plea agreement, required to provide incriminating information . In addition, V entura

- Cruel had not ask ed to have the plea
withdrawn or otherwi se lose the benefits of the plea agreement. Thus, under the circumstances, admitting the letter would deprive him of the benefit of the agreement, yet place the government4

in a better position. Ventura

- Cruel , 356 F.3d at 62

- 63. Similarly, in Escamilla
, the defendant was required
, by a plea agreement
, to make incriminating statements regarding his role in a drug conspiracy and, after he made incriminating statements but failed a polygraph, the government withdrew from the agreement. Again, the court det ermined that using the admissions would deny him the benefit of the bargain and place the government in a superior position. Escamilla
, 975 F.2d at 571

- 72. By contrast, here, Plaster entered an Alford plea and was not required to and did not
admit or ac cept responsibility for the underlying crimes charged. Plaster was advised of his rights before making the admissions. There were no provisions in the plea agreement which
induced Plaster to make incriminating statements. Plaster, not the State, volunta rily withdrew from the plea agreement. Further, the district court determined that the statements were voluntarily made. Plaster has failed to demonstrate or provide relevant authority for hi s claim that admission of the evidence was erroneous on the ground that such admission would be fundamentally unfair.
III.
CONCLUSION Plaster has not demonstrated error in admitting into evidence the statements made in the psychosexual evaluation. There fore, the district court’s order granting the State’s motion in
limine
, and Plaster’s judgments of conviction and sentences are affirmed. Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge MELANSON, CONCUR.