State v. Christopher Lee Schmid
Background
- Christopher Lee Schmid pled guilty to battery upon certain personnel; a second charge was dismissed in exchange for the plea.
- He was sentenced to a unified five-year term with two years minimum; the sentence was suspended and Schmid was placed on probation and ordered into mental health court.
- Schmid violated probation (absconding and suspension from mental health court); the district court revoked probation on June 3, 2015, ordered execution of sentence, but expressly retained jurisdiction for 365 days under I.C. § 19-2601(4).
- The 365-day retention period expired on June 2, 2016; Schmid was thereby under Department of Correction control absent an authorized extension.
- The district court held a jurisdictional review hearing on June 8, 2016, then suspended execution and again placed Schmid on probation and later denied his I.C.R. 35 motion after terminating him from the treatment program.
- The State argued the post-expiration proceedings were void for lack of jurisdiction; Schmid contended the scheduled hearing implicitly extended jurisdiction under the thirty-day extension provision.
Issues
| Issue | Schmid's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court retained jurisdiction to reinstate probation after the 365-day retention period expired | Scheduling a review hearing beyond the 365 days implicitly invoked the 30-day extension authorized by statute | No extension order was entered before expiration; once 365 days lapsed, jurisdiction ended and subsequent actions were void | Court held the district court lacked jurisdiction after June 2, 2016; placing Schmid on probation on June 8, 2016 was void |
| Whether the district court could validly grant or deny Schmid’s I.C.R. 35 motion after the retention period expired | The district court’s post-expiration rulings (including on Rule 35) were effective | Post-expiration rulings were void for lack of jurisdiction | Court held the Rule 35 proceedings were void for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Petersen, 149 Idaho 808 (Ct. App. 2010) (district court loses control after statutory retention period; subsequent proceedings are void)
- State v. Taylor, 142 Idaho 30 (2005) (no retroactive extension: extension must be ordered prior to expiration to be effective)