State v. Forbes, 275 P.3d 864

Forbes pleaded guilty to Attempted Lewd Conduct with a Minor Child Under Sixteen on Jan. 13, 2003, with withheld judgment and seven-year probation requiring sex offender registration.
At the time of the offense, I.C. § 19-2604(1) allowed dismissal if probation terms were satisfied and no longer cause for probation; court could dismiss and discharge.
On July 1, 2006, I.C. § 19-2604(3) amended to bar dismissal or reduction for offenses requiring sex offender registration, defining conviction broadly.
Forbes’s probation was later unsupervised in July 2007; in 2010 he moved to set aside the guilty plea under the withheld judgment to dismiss the case and restore civil rights.
The district court granted Forbes’s motion to dismiss in 2010, holding the amendment was unconstitutional ex post facto as applied to Forbes, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s ruling, reaffirmed Hardwick, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the amendment apply retroactively to Forbes?	Forbes argues no retroactive effect.	State argues retroactivity implied by statute and Hardwick.	Yes, retroactive application applies.
Does retroactive application violate ex post facto clauses?	Amendment punishes by creating conviction and punishment.	Amendment is nonpunitive, aligns with registration goals.	No ex post facto violation; nonpunitive purpose upheld.

State v. Hardwick, 150 Idaho 580, 249 P.3d 379 (Idaho 2011) (retroactive application not punitive; serves public safety)
Wheeler v. Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare, 147 Idaho 257, 207 P.3d 988 (Idaho 2009) (ex post facto standard and punitive analysis)
Beazell v. Ohio, 269 U.S. 167 (U.S. 1925) (ex post facto prohibition framework)