Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Castrejon

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 8, 2017

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CESAR GABRIEL CASTREJON, Defendant-Respondent.

         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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.