State v. Edgar Farfan-Galvan
161 Idaho 610
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Farfan-Galvan was charged with felony DUI in 2014 based on two prior DUI convictions, including a 2010 Twin Falls County misdemeanor DUI conviction.
- In the 2010 matter he signed documents at the courthouse counter, later filed for appointed counsel, and was informed the application was denied; the record does not show whether he received that notice.
- At the October 5, 2010 magistrate proceeding the court asked if he had a lawyer; he said he did not, and the magistrate proceeded to sentence him; there is no on-record waiver of the right to counsel.
- In 2014 Farfan-Galvan moved to dismiss or remand the felony enhancement, arguing the 2010 conviction was invalid because it was obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
- The district court denied relief, relying on Weber and Custis to hold that only a denial of the right to appointed counsel (Gideon error) supports a collateral attack; Farfan-Galvan entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed, holding the silent record as to counsel waiver renders the 2010 conviction unusable for enhancement and vacated the 2014 judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prior conviction obtained without counsel and without an on-record waiver can be used to enhance a later offense | The 2010 conviction shows no counsel or waiver; under Burgett/Carnley waiver cannot be presumed from a silent record, so the prior conviction is void for enhancement | The State argued collateral attacks are limited to Gideon-type denials of appointed counsel and Weber/Custis preclude attacking other plea defects in collateral proceedings | Held: A silent record as to waiver renders the prior conviction invalid for enhancement; reversal and vacatur of the 2014 judgment. |
| Whether collateral attack here is governed by Gideon/Custis/Weber scope (i.e., limited to denial of appointed counsel) | Farfan-Galvan: lack of any counsel falls within the exception allowing collateral attack | State: Custis and Weber limit collateral attacks to denials of Gideon entitlement only | Held: Court rejected overly narrow focus; Burgett/Tucker control where record is silent—waiver cannot be presumed—even if not an appointed-counsel claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel applied to the states; trial unconstitutional without counsel or a valid waiver)
- Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109 (1967) (cannot presume waiver of counsel from a silent record; prior conviction void if defendant had no counsel and no valid waiver)
- United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443 (1972) (reiterating that convictions obtained in violation of Gideon cannot be used to enhance later sentences)
- Custis v. United States, 511 U.S. 485 (1994) (collateral attacks on prior convictions used for enhancement generally limited; exception for denial of right to appointed counsel)
- State v. Weber, 140 Idaho 89 (2004) (Idaho court rejecting collateral attacks based on Rule 11-type plea deficiencies for enhancement purposes; discussed Custis)