State v. Hartwig
150 Idaho 326
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Hartwig pled guilty in 1991 to lewd and lascivious conduct with an eight-year-old, receiving a suspended sentence and probation.
- SORA was enacted in 1993 and Hartwig, then on probation, was required to register as a sex offender.
- In 1998, SORA replaced prior registration law; Hartwig remained subject to registration as he was on probation in 1993.
- Hartwig petitioned in 2006 and again in 2008 for exemption from registration; the district court found in 2008 he met the burden to be released from registration.
- On October 1, 2008, the district court ordered Hartwig released from registration; forty-one days later, the state moved for reconsideration and the court reinstated the registration.
- The state argued Hartwig was an aggravated offender under 18-8303(1); Hartwig argued this violated ex post facto principles and that the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend its order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to amend its order? | Hartwig argues the district court lacked jurisdiction to amend the order releasing him from registration. | Hartwig's position is that the state’s motion improperly sought reconsideration under criminal rules; jurisdiction was still intact until proper limits. | District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to amend the order; order reinstating registration must be vacated. |
| Was the state's motion for reconsideration timely under I.R.C.P. 59(e)? | Hartwig contends the motion was untimely and improperly treated under civil rules. | Hartwig acknowledges potential timeliness issues; the state contends civil rules apply and timing was proper. | Motion was untimely under I.R.C.P. 59(e); jurisdiction expired after timely period under Jakoski. |
| Did applying the 2001 amendments to Hartwig violate constitutional rights? | Hartwig asserted ex post facto challenges to applying aggravated-offense exclusions. | State argued SORA provisions are civil/regulatory, not punitive, so ex post facto challenges fail. | Court did not reach constitutional issues due to lack of jurisdiction; thus no ruling on the merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jakoski, 139 Idaho 352 (2003) (trial court loses jurisdiction to amend a final judgment absent extending statute or timely appeal)
- Ray v. State, 133 Idaho 96 (1999) (SORA remedial and civil in nature)
- Camp v. E. Fork Ditch Co., 137 Idaho 850 (2002) (finality and appealability of orders; preservation of rights)
- Davis v. Peacock, 133 Idaho 637 (1999) (final judgment and appealability standards)
- Diamond v. Sandpoint Title Ins., Inc., 132 Idaho 145 (1998) (timeliness of notices and jurisdictional concerns)
- In re Universe Life Ins. Co., 144 Idaho 751 (2007) (jurisdictional review and sua sponte authority)
- State v. Lundquist, 134 Idaho 831 (2000) (courts may review jurisdiction sua sponte)
- H & V Eng'g, Inc. v. Idaho State Bd. of Prof'l Eng'rs and Land Surveyors, 113 Idaho 646 (1987) (standards for reviewing jurisdictional questions)
- State v. Tracy, 119 Idaho 1027 (1991) (constitutional questions not reached absent appropriate cause)
- Coeur d'Alene Mining Co. v. First Nat. Bank of N. Idaho, 118 Idaho 812 (1990) (civil procedure rules governing relief and judgments)