Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Kathryn A. Sticklen, District Judge. Hon. Daniel Steckel, Magistrate.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gratton, Chief Judge
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 620
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order of the district court upholding the magistrate's denial of a motion to dismiss, affirmed.
Stephen D. L'Abbe appeals from the district court's intermediate appellate decision affirming his conditional guilty plea before a magistrate to a misdemeanor open container violation.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
L'Abbe was cited by a Boise police officer for an open container violation. The magistrate found probable cause that L'Abbe had committed the violation. L'Abbe filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice because the magistrate lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction which was denied. Thereafter, L'Abbe entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the jurisdictional issues, and he was ordered to pay a fine and costs, which were stayed pending the appeal. L'Abbe appealed to the district court and the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision. L'Abbe timely appeals.
On review of a decision of the district court, rendered in its appellate capacity, we review the decision of the district court directly. Losser v. Bradstreet, 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008); State v. DeWitt, 145 Idaho 709, 711, 184 P.3d 215, 217 (Ct. App. 2008). We examine the magistrate record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. Losser, 145 Idaho at 672, 183 P.3d at 760; DeWitt, 145 Idaho at 711, 184 P.3d at 217. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure. Losser, 145 Idaho at 672, 183 P.3d at 760; DeWitt, 145 Idaho at 711, 184 P.3d at 217.
A. The Magistrate Division Had Jurisdiction Over L'Abbe
L'Abbe argues, in various ways, that the magistrate division in this matter did not have proper jurisdiction over him or the case. In summation, L'Abbe argues that: (1) the magistrate lacked personal and subject matter jurisdiction; (2) his Sixth Amendment right was violated because he has the right to face his accusers and "[n]o Mr. Idaho" appeared in court; and (3) he "is not evidenced in earlier affidavits a 14th Amendment slave as cited above." Whether a court has jurisdiction is a question of law, over which we exercise free review. State v. Kavajecz, 139 Idaho 482, 483, 80 P.3d 1083, ...