Court Opinion

ID: 9410162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-20 16:05:43.514478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:55.544999
License: Public Domain

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 49241

 STATE OF IDAHO,                                     )
                                                     )
      Plaintiff-Respondent,                          )          Boise, April 2023 Term
                                                     )
 v.                                                  )          Opinion filed: July 20, 2023
                                                     )
 ROBERT RICHARD MILLER,                              )          Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
                                                     )
      Defendant-Appellant.                           )
                                                     )

        Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho,
        Nez Perce County. Jay P. Gaskill, District Judge.

        The defendant’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for further
        proceedings.

        Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Jacob
        Westerfield argued.

        Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Andrew Wake
        argued.

ZAHN, Justice.
        Robert Richard Miller appeals his conviction for felony driving under the influence
(“DUI”) and the district court’s application of a sentencing enhancement based on a prior
conviction for felony DUI within the previous fifteen years. Miller argues: (1) the district court
erred in dismissing the jury before it heard and determined the facts regarding the sentencing
enhancement without first obtaining a valid waiver of Miller’s right to a jury trial; (2) the
appropriate remedy for the error is to determine the sentencing enhancement does not apply; and
(3) if the sentencing enhancement is still applicable to Miller, his sentence should be vacated and
the case remanded for a new trial on whether Miller should be subject to the sentencing
enhancement. Given the State’s concession that the district court committed fundamental error, we

                                                 1
conclude that the appropriate remedy is to vacate Miller’s sentence and remand for a new trial to
determine whether the sentencing enhancement applies to Miller.
                  I.   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       On March 3, 2021, the State charged Miller by Information with violating Idaho Code
section 18-8004(1)(a) by driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (“DUI”). The State
also alleged that a sentencing enhancement applied pursuant to Idaho Code section 18-8005(9).
Idaho Code section 18-8005(9) enhances the sentence for a DUI conviction when the defendant
has been convicted of another felony DUI within the previous fifteen years. If applicable, the
enhancement increases the conviction from a misdemeanor to a felony and also increases the
potential sentence and other penalties imposed.
       Miller pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury. The jury trial was bifurcated. In “part
one” of the trial, the jury was presented evidence concerning the DUI charge. If the jury found
Miller guilty on that charge, the trial would proceed to a “part two,” during which the jury would
be presented with the evidence concerning the applicability of the sentencing enhancement.
       Following the presentation of evidence in part one of the trial, but before the jury
announced its verdict, the district court held a discussion with counsel outside the presence of the
jury concerning proceedings on the potential part two:
       THE COURT: We’re back on the record in State vs. Miller, CR35-20-7499. I’ve
       been informed that the Jury has reached a verdict. Both counsel are present. Mr.
       Miller is present.
               My understanding from talking with [defense] counsel [is] that should the
       verdict be one of guilty, that you are stipulating to the State’s Exhibit No. 2, the
       prior judgment of conviction dated September 1st, 2011, signed by Judge – District
       Judge Michael McLaughlin; is that correct?
       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That’s correct, Your Honor.
       THE COURT: Okay. So it would be my intent, again, only if – and only if, of
       course, the verdict is guilty, we’ll release the jury at this time based on that
       stipulation to State’s Exhibit No. 2; is that correct, [counsel]?
       [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That is correct, Your Honor.
       THE COURT: [Prosecutor], anything in addition?
       [PROSECUTOR]: No, Your Honor.
State’s Exhibit No. 2 was a certified copy of a judgment of conviction for Robert Richard Miller
from the Fourth District Court in Valley County, Idaho, signed by District Judge Michael
McLaughlin on September 1, 2011.

                                                  2
       The jury found Miller guilty on the felony DUI charge. After the verdict was read, State’s
Exhibit No. 2 was admitted into evidence based on the parties’ stipulation. The district court
subsequently dismissed the jury. The jury was not instructed on the felony enhancement, nor did
it make any findings on the enhancement. The district court did not question Miller about whether
he was waiving his right to have a jury trial on the enhancement, and it made no findings
concerning the applicability of the enhancement after it dismissed the jury. After the jury was
dismissed, the district court and parties discussed sentencing and a presentence investigation.
       At sentencing, the State asked for a three- to ten-year sentence based on Miller’s history of
multiple DUIs. The district court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Miller to a
unified term of nine years, with two years fixed. Miller timely appealed.
                              II.    QUESTION ON APPEAL
       Given the State’s concession that the district court committed fundamental error, what is
       the appropriate remedy?
                                      III.   ANALYSIS
A. The State concedes that the district court committed fundamental error when it failed to
   obtain a valid waiver of Miller’s right to a jury trial on Part II of the Information.
       Miller asserts that the district court committed fundamental error in excusing the jury
without first obtaining a valid waiver of Miller’s right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment
of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Idaho Constitution. Because Miller
asserts an error to which his attorney did not object below, we review his claim for fundamental
error. State v. Miller, 165 Idaho 115, 119, 443 P.3d 129, 133 (2019). Under the fundamental error
doctrine, the appellant must demonstrate that:
       (1) . . . one or more of the defendant’s unwaived constitutional rights were violated;
       (2) the error must be clear or obvious, without the need for any additional
       information not contained in the appellate record, including information as to
       whether the failure to object was a tactical decision; and (3) . . . the error affected
       the defendant’s substantial rights, meaning (in most instances) that it must have
       affected the outcome of the trial proceedings.
State v. Alvarado, 168 Idaho 189, 196, 481 P.3d 737, 744 (2021); Miller, 165 Idaho at 119, 443
P.3d at 133.
       On appeal, the State concedes that the district court’s dismissal of the jury in this case
constituted fundamental error. Therefore, we will assume, without deciding, that Miller
demonstrated fundamental error and will turn to the appropriate remedy for that error.

                                                 3
B. Miller’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for a new trial on Part II of the
   Information.
       While the parties agree that the district court committed fundamental error, they disagree
as to the appropriate remedy in this case. Miller asserts that the sentencing enhancement should
not be applied to him because the jury was never presented with evidence of his prior conviction,
and therefore the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the
enhancement should be applied to him. Miller also contends that if the Court rejects this argument,
then this Court should remand for a new trial on the sentencing enhancement.
       The State contends that Miller’s argument is unpersuasive because there was no evidence
presented on the sentencing enhancement. Therefore, it cannot be determined whether the
enhancement should apply to Miller. The State asserts this case should be remanded for a new trial
or plea on the enhancement because the remedy for an invalid plea or waiver of the right to a jury
trial is a remand for a new trial or new guilty plea.
       “If the defendant persuades the appellate court that the complained of error satisfies this
three-prong inquiry, then the appellate court shall vacate and remand.” State v. Perry, 150 Idaho
209, 228, 245 P.3d 961, 980 (2010). Reversal for a trial error is distinguishable from a reversal
based on insufficiency of evidence because a trial error does not amount to a decision that the
government failed to prove its case. Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 15 (1978). “Rather, it is a
determination that a defendant has been convicted through a judicial process which is defective in
some fundamental respect, e. g. [sic], incorrect receipt or rejection of evidence, incorrect
instructions, or prosecutorial misconduct.” Id.
       Alternatively, a reversal for insufficiency of the evidence entitles a defendant to acquittal.
State v. Calver, 155 Idaho 207, 210, 307 P.3d 1233, 1236 (Ct. App. 2013). A conviction will be
“overturned on appeal where the [S]tate did not produce admissible evidence upon which a jury
could have found that the [S]tate sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of a crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Moore, 148 Idaho 887, 892, 231 P.3d 532, 537 (Ct. App.
2010) (citing State v. Cortez, 135 Idaho 561, 562, 21 P.3d 498, 499 (Ct. App. 2001)).
       Miller argues that in a situation like this one, the Idaho Court of Appeals has held that the
proper remedy is to vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing without the sentencing
enhancement. See State v. McClain, 154 Idaho 742, 302 P.3d 367 (Ct. App. 2012); State v. Harris,
160 Idaho 729, 378 P.3d 519 (Ct. App. 2016); State v. Ish, 161 Idaho 823, 392 P.3d 1 (Ct. App.
2014). However, these cases are distinguishable because the evidence concerning the enhancement

                                                  4
was presented to a jury at a trial and the jury found that the enhancement applied to the defendant.
See Harris, 160 Idaho at 731, 378 P.3d at 521; Ish, 161 Idaho at 825, 392 P.3d at 3; McClain, 154
Idaho at 748–49, 302 P.3d at 373–74. The Court of Appeals in each case then reviewed the
sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial. See Harris, 160 Idaho at 731, 378 P.3d at 521; Ish,
161 Idaho at 825–26, 392 P.3d at 3–4; McClain, 154 Idaho at 748–49, 302 P.3d at 373–74. In all
three cases, the Court of Appeals determined that the State presented insufficient evidence on the
sentencing enhancement. See Harris, 160 Idaho at 731, 378 P.3d at 521; Ish, 161 Idaho at 825–26,
392 P.3d at 3–4; McClain, 154 Idaho at 748, 302 P.3d at 373. This case is distinguishable because
there was no evidence presented to the jury on the enhancement and the jury rendered no finding
concerning whether the enhancement applied to Miller.
       Because no evidence was presented to the jury, we cannot conduct a review for sufficiency
of the evidence. As a result, the sufficiency of evidence standard is inapplicable to this issue.
Instead, this case concerns trial error. A trial error can be remedied with a fair retrial “free from
error.” See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 42 (1988) (citations omitted). We therefore hold that
the proper remedy is to vacate the sentence and remand for further proceedings on the sentencing
enhancement.
       The Court of Appeals reached a similar result in State v. Cheatham, 139 Idaho 413, 80 P.3d
349 (Ct. App. 2003). In that case, the Court of Appeals vacated the enhanced sentence and
remanded for resentencing after determining that the stipulation to the enhancement constituted
reversible error. Id. at 418–19, 80 P.3d at 354–55. There, counsel for the defendant stipulated to
the truth of the persistent violator enhancement after the jury delivered a verdict of guilty on the
underlying crimes. Id. at 414–15, 80 P.3d at 350–51. Similar to this case, Cheatham did not waive
his right to a jury trial on the enhancement. Id. The Court of Appeals held that “due process
principles preclude the acceptance of a stipulation to the truth of persistent violator allegations
without judicial inquiry to determine that the defendant makes the admission voluntarily and with
an understanding of the consequences.” Id. at 418, 80 P.3d at 354. Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals vacated the sentence and remanded the case. Id. at 418–19, 80 P.3d at 354–55.
       The facts in Cheatham are analogous to the facts here because defense counsel in both
cases effectively stipulated to the enhancement by admitting to the prior conviction. Miller
contends Cheatham is distinguishable because defense counsel in Cheatham stipulated to the truth
of the persistent violator enhancement, while Miller’s counsel only stipulated to the admission of

                                                 5
State’s Exhibit No. 2. Therefore, Miller argues that State’s Exhibit No. 2 should be reviewed under
the sufficiency of the evidence standard. However, the distinction is irrelevant because the fact
remains that no evidence was presented to the jury in either case.
       The appropriate remedy flows from how the stipulation affected the proceedings. The
effect of counsels’ actions in both Cheatham and this case was that the trial courts dismissed the
juries without first obtaining a valid waiver of the defendants’ rights to a jury trial on the
enhancement. As a result, Cheatham is instructive here. The proper remedy for the district court’s
error is to vacate the sentence imposed and remand Miller’s case for a new trial on the sentencing
enhancement.
       We note that our decision today only remands for further proceedings on the sentencing
enhancement. The jury already reached a verdict of guilty on the DUI charge. Our decision today
does not vacate that verdict.
                                    IV.    CONCLUSION
       The district court committed fundamental error by failing to obtain a valid waiver of
Miller’s right to a jury trial on the applicability of the sentencing enhancement prior to dismissing
the jury. Accordingly, we vacate Miller’s sentence and remand for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
       Chief Justice BEVAN, and Justices BRODY, STEGNER, and MOELLER CONCUR.

                                                 6