State v. LIGON-BRUNO
152 Idaho 274
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Ligon-Bruno pled guilty to possession of cocaine in 2005; probation four years set to expire February 21, 2010.
- January 4, 2010, Ligon-Bruno arrested on new drug charges; probation violation materials prepared allegedly for probable cause at initial appearance.
- January 4 hearing resulted in release on probation violation; probation violation report filed January 8, 2010 but not timely acted upon.
- Probation term expired February 21, 2010; February 27, 2010, Ligon-Bruno arrested again for meth possession.
- March 3, 2010, addendum to the January 8 report filed; March 4 Ligon-Bruno arrested on bench warrant; March 17 arraigned on probation violation allegations.
- District court dismissed the January 8/addendum violations for lack of jurisdiction; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to adjudicate January 4 violations | Ligon-Bruno timely started proceedings within probation period. | Commencement requires a bench warrant within probation period under §20-222. | Proceedings commenced timely via probation violation report; court had authority. |
| Commencement form of probation violation proceedings | January 8 report suffices to commence proceedings. | Only formal bench warrant initiation ensures commencement. | Report suffices to commence; not limited to bench warrants. |
| Tolled probation for February 27 violation | January 8 tolls the period, extending jurisdiction to February 27. | Harvey tolling applies only to absconding, not non-absconder violations. | Harvey tolling does not apply; February 27 violation cannot be adjudicated. |
| Effect of tolling on January 4 violations | Proceedings tolled during ongoing violation proceedings. | Tolling only for absconding cases; January 4 offenses adjudicated within term. | January 4 violations adjudicable; proceedings timely commenced. |
| Scope of district court authority post-probation term | If proceedings began during term, court can act even after term ends. | Absent timely initiation, no jurisdiction after term. | Court possessed authority for January 4 violations; lacked authority for February 27 violations. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gamino, 148 Idaho 827 (Ct.App. 2010) (probation violation proceedings must commence during the probationary period)
- State v. Harvey, 142 Idaho 727 (Ct.App. 2006) (probation term tolled while absconding; courts may act if commenced during probation)
- State v. Edelblute, 91 Idaho 469 (1967) (due-process protections for probation revocation conduct and notice)
- State v. Doe, 147 Idaho 326 (2009) (petition/formal charging probation violations to commence proceedings)