2017
Opinion No. 57
Appeal
from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State
of Idaho, Gooding County. Hon. John K. Butler, District
Judge. Hon. Casey Robinson, Magistrate.
Order
of the district court remanding case to magistrate court for
lack of jurisdiction, reversed and case
remanded.
Hon.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant.
Eric
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P.
McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
respondent.
GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE
The
State appeals from the district court's order remanding
the case back to magistrate court for lack of jurisdiction.
We reverse and remand the case to the district court for
further proceedings.
I.
FACTUAL
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Cesar
Gabriel Castrejon head-butted a Gooding police officer in the
face and repeatedly kicked a Gooding County deputy sheriff in
the knee while he was detained and being assessed by
emergency medical services. The State charged Castrejon by
information with two counts of battery on a law enforcement
officer, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(b), [1]
18-915(3).[2] Count I alleged Castrejon "did
actually, intentionally, and unlawfully, touch and/or strike
the person of [the officer], against his will by striking him
in the face." Count II alleged Castrejon "did
actually, intentionally, and unlawfully, touch and/or strike
the person of [the deputy sheriff] against her will by
kicking her multiple times in her knee." At his
arraignment, Castrejon entered a not guilty plea to all
charges. However, Castrejon and the State later entered a
plea agreement whereby Castrejon agreed to enter an
Alford[3] plea to Count I of the information, and
the State agreed to dismiss Count II.
At
Castrejon's change of plea hearing, the district court,
on its own initiative, posed a question to both parties:
whether the language in the information was sufficient to
charge felonies, as opposed to misdemeanors. Following a
colloquy with the parties, the district court concluded that
both touching an officer and striking an officer, in a
violation of I.C. §§ 18-903(b), 18-915(3), are
misdemeanor offenses. Accordingly, the district court
concluded Counts I and II of the information charged
Castrejon with misdemeanors and sua sponte remanded the case
back to magistrate court for lack of jurisdiction. The State
timely appeals.
II.
ANALYSIS
The
State asserts that the district court erred by remanding this
case to magistrate court for lack of jurisdiction because the
information charged Castrejon with two felony counts, not two
misdemeanor counts, of battery under I.C. § 18-915(3).
On the other hand, Castrejon contends that the State did not
preserve the argument made on appeal, invited any error by
the district court, and the district court's reading of
the statute was correct.
A.
Preserving Arguments for Appeal
We
first turn to the issue of whether the State preserved its
arguments for appeal. Appellate court review is limited to
the evidence, theories, and arguments that were presented
below. State v. Johnson, 148 Idaho 664, 670, 227
P.3d 918, 924 (2010). Generally, issues not raised below may
not be considered for the first time on appeal. State v.
Fodge, 121 Idaho 192, 195, 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992).
Castrejon
asserts the State made no argument regarding the plain
language of the statute below. Therefore, the State may not
argue that the district court's decision was erroneous
based on the plain language of the statute on appeal.
The
State asserts the issue of whether the language
"touching and/or striking" a law enforcement
officer charged a felony under the applicable statutes was
squarely raised and decided by the district court, and may
thus be challenged on appeal. The State argues that its
position has always been that the inclusion of misdemeanor
language regarding touching in the information was an
"and/or" alternative, or a lesser ...