Opinion ID: 1169834
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of I.C.R. 25(a)

Text: Idaho Criminal Rule 25(a) provides that each party in a criminal action has a right to disqualify one judge without cause, provided the moving party complies with the procedures set forth in the rule. I.C.R. 25(a). This right is reinstated if a district or appellate court grants a new trial, however this right is not reinstated when a case is remanded for sentencing or resentencing. I.C.R. 25(a)(5). Whether a district court properly applied the mandates of I.C.R. 25(a) is a question of law. Therefore, when this Court reviews a district court's actions pursuant to I.C.R. 25(a), this Court exercises independent, or free, review. In re Hanson, 121 Idaho 507, 826 P.2d 468 (1992). Larios contends that the evidentiary hearing on remand was a separate action that entitled him to a right of automatic disqualification pursuant to I.C.R. 25(a). He specifically refutes the characterization of the hearing as solely a sentencing hearing. We disagree with Larios' arguments. The waiver hearing and the sentencing proceeding clearly were a continuation of the original proceeding. See State v. Bingham, 116 Idaho 415, 425, 776 P.2d 424, 434 (1989). [2] Our cases addressing the application of I.C.R. 25(a) demonstrate that, once the parties allow a judge to sit, the parties lose the option to disqualify the judge, thereby indicating that a proceeding will be considered a single action within the meaning of I.C.R. 25(a) if one judge typically presides over all aspects of the proceeding. See Bingham, 116 Idaho at 425, 776 P.2d at 434 (arraignments); State v. Beam, 115 Idaho 208, 766 P.2d 678 (1988) (postconviction relief proceedings). See also State v. Blume, 113 Idaho 224, 743 P.2d 92 (Ct.App.1987) (contempt proceedings). Thus, in the present case, we believe the appeal does not make any difference regarding the right of automatic disqualification of the district court. If Larios had not appealed and simply had entered his plea, he would not be entitled to disqualify the district court prior to the waiver hearing and sentencing proceeding. Because we have determined that the waiver hearing and the sentencing proceeding simply were an ongoing part of the original proceeding, we hold that no right of automatic disqualification was reinstated when this Court remanded the case after deciding Larios I. Larios also contends that, according to I.C.R. 25(e), the district court lacked authority to withdraw its order of disqualification. Rule 25(e), I.C.R., limits a district court's authority to act further in a case after a motion for automatic disqualification has been filed, except to grant or deny the motion for disqualification. I.C.R. 25(e). Larios argues that I.C.R. 25(e) precluded the district court from taking any action, including reconsideration, once the district court had granted the motion for disqualification. We disagree with Larios' interpretation of I.C.R. 25(e). Rather, we believe that I.C.R. 25(e) means that the district court may not take any action, other than ruling on the motion to disqualify, after the motion has been filed. Clearly, the district court in the present case simply was reexamining the issue of whether it should grant or deny the motion to disqualify and was not taking any other action in the case. Thus, the district court was well within its rights to reconsider its ruling, and we conclude that the district court was correct to set aside the earlier order.