2014 Opinion No. 36
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Elmore County. Hon. R. Barry Wood, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and sentence for three counts of sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
LANSING, Judge. Chief Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge MELANSON CONCUR.
[156 Idaho 309] LANSING, Judge
Denvil R. Hamlin was convicted of three counts of sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult, felony, Idaho Code § 18-1505B. On appeal, he argues the trial court erred when it denied various motions relating to Hamlin's competency, a motion to suppress his confession, and a motion to dismiss asserting constitutional claims. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
Mountain Home police officers received a report from a social worker indicating that Hamlin may have sexually abused and economically exploited that social worker's client. The alleged victim, a forty-six-year-old mentally retarded man  with psychiatric infirmities, was interviewed at Children at Risk Evaluation Services (CARES) in Boise.
[156 Idaho 310] He indicated that Hamlin had touched him inappropriately. CARES conveyed the information to police officers who made arrangements to speak with Hamlin at the police station. Once there, Hamlin admitted that he had touched the victim's penis with his hand, performed oral sex on the victim, and engaged in anal sex with the victim.
Hamlin was charged with three counts of sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult. Hamlin, who is also mentally retarded, raised various motions asserting that he was incompetent to stand trial, that his confession should be suppressed, and that the statute he was alleged to have violated was unconstitutional. After the district court had denied each of the motions, Hamlin entered a conditional guilty plea preserving these three issues for appeal. Hamlin was sentenced to three consecutive, unified sentences of ten years with two years determinate, for an aggregate sentence of thirty years with six years determinate, but the court suspended the sentence and placed Hamlin on probation.
On appeal, Hamlin contends that the district court erred by finding him to be competent to stand trial, denying his motion to suppress his confession based on an alleged violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and denying his motion to dismiss the charges on grounds that the statute under which he was charged was unconstitutional. With respect to the constitutionality of the statute, he asserts that the enforcement of I.C. § 18-1505B, prohibiting sex with a vulnerable adult, denies him due process and violates equal protection.