State v. Jacob Douglas Keene
Background
- In 2008 Jacob Keene pleaded guilty to felony DUI and received a unified seven-year sentence with two years determinate, suspended, and was placed on probation.
- Keene incurred multiple probation violations (2010 disturbing the peace; 2011 methamphetamine use and failure to report residence; 2012 alcohol use) with probation repeatedly revoked and reinstated; 2012 order required completion of Ada County Drug Court.
- In 2014 the State moved to discharge Keene from drug court alleging 22 violations; Keene admitted 13 violations (missed meetings/UA/Breathalyzer, no-contact violations, maintaining prohibited relationships).
- A probation officer found expired Zyprexa pills at Keene’s residence; Keene later produced treatment records showing he had disclosed Zyprexa, but drug court had discharged him for failing to adhere to rules based primarily on the other admitted violations and lack of progress.
- The district court revoked Keene’s probation for failing to successfully complete drug court and sentenced him to 730 days county jail (with credit), leaving 290 days to serve; Keene appealed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Keene's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Appeal not moot only if cognizable relief exists; practical relief unlikely | Appeal not moot because possible reinstatement could lead to misdemeanor reduction under I.C. § 19-2604(3) | Not moot: defendant has legally cognizable interest so appeal proceeds |
| Whether drug court discharge was tainted by factual error (Zyprexa) | Discharge supported by Keene’s 13 admissions and other violations; Zyprexa not the basis for discharge | Drug court relied on incorrect factual premise that Zyprexa was undisclosed, tainting discharge | No factual error tainting outcome: discharge premised on admitted violations, not Zyprexa |
| Whether revocation of probation was an abuse of discretion | Revocation proper based on failure to complete drug court, long program duration, honesty issues, and repeated noncompliance | Revocation tainted because it relied on the allegedly erroneous Zyprexa-related discharge | No abuse of discretion: substantial evidence supports violation and revocation; court would have revoked regardless of Zyprexa issue |
| Whether fundamental (procedural due process) error occurred | No; drug court found actual violations and considered progress appropriately; revocation procedures adequate | Yes; discharge considered lack of progress not alleged in State’s motion, depriving procedural due process | No fundamental error: no unwaived constitutional right shown; admissions and other violations justified discharge and revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Manley, 142 Idaho 338 (Idaho 2005) (mootness and appellate review principles)
- State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837 (Idaho 2011) (conviction with collateral consequences may avoid mootness)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1982) (case becomes moot when issues are no longer live or no cognizable interest exists)
- State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996) (probation revocation standard: rehabilitation and protection of society)
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2010) (standard for appellate review of unobjected-to fundamental error)
- McDonald v. State, 124 Idaho 103 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992) (when discretionary rulings tainted by error, remand normally required unless result would not change)
- State v. Mummert, 98 Idaho 452 (Idaho 1978) (if other valid violations exist, remand not required when revocation would stand on those grounds)