State v. Danielle Nicole Schreiner
Background
- Danielle Schreiner pleaded guilty in two consolidated cases: grand theft and felony methamphetamine possession; received retained jurisdiction then probation after sentencing to unified terms.
- Schreiner admitted multiple probation violations, including ongoing methamphetamine use; was ordered into drug court as a probation condition and was later expelled after using methamphetamine while pregnant with twins.
- The State moved to revoke probation; at the dispositional hearing the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentences.
- The district court expressly stated incarceration was in part to prevent Schreiner from becoming pregnant and using meth again, saying women who use meth while pregnant "do not deserve to live in a free society."
- Schreiner filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions to reduce sentence; the district court denied them. She appealed the revocation/execution orders and the denials of I.C.R. 35 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probation revocation was lawful given violations | State: Schreiner repeatedly violated probation, exhausted community options, and drug court; revocation and execution appropriate | Schreiner: Court improperly relied on preventing pregnancy and thus violated constitutional rights and abused discretion | Court: Probation was not achieving rehabilitation; revocation as a consequence of violations was permissible, but placement in custody cannot be justified to prevent pregnancy |
| Whether executing sentence to prevent future pregnancy was proper | State: Execution was part of appropriate disposition given willful violations and protection of children/society | Schreiner: Execution was motivated by preventing pregnancy, an improper factor violating due process/privacy/equal protection | Court: Using prevention of pregnancy as a basis is an improper sentencing factor and an abuse of discretion; reversal and remand for new dispositional hearing before a different judge |
| Whether the district court abused discretion in finding violations willful | State: Violations were willful based on admissions and repeated noncompliance | Schreiner: Argued the willfulness finding was tainted by improper considerations | Court: Finding that probation failed rehabilitation was supported; but willfulness finding tied to improper pregnancy-prevention rationale required new disposition |
| Whether denial of I.C.R. 35 motions was error | State: No new information shows sentences excessive; denial proper | Schreiner: Asked for leniency/reduction under I.C.R. 35 | Held: District court did not abuse discretion in denying I.C.R. 35 motions; those denials are affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1992) (probation may be revoked for violation; court may execute suspended sentence)
- State v. Leach, 135 Idaho 525, 20 P.3d 709 (Ct. App. 2001) (distinguishes willful vs. non-willful probation violations)
- State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982) (relevant sentencing goals: protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, punishment)
- State v. Camp, 107 Idaho 36, 684 P.2d 1013 (Ct. App. 1984) (improper sentencing factors require remand for resentencing)
- People v. Negrete, 629 N.E.2d 687 (Ill. 1994) (holding that incarceration to prevent pregnancy is improper)
- State v. Ikerd, 850 A.2d 516 (N.J. App. Div. 2004) (executing sentence to protect unborn child is an abuse of discretion)