State v. Mosqueda
150 Idaho 830
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Ada County detective initiated controlled buys from Mosqueda and Garcia (April 10 and April 16, 2008).
- Two later buys from Garcia (May 14 and July 14, 2008) involved Mosqueda not personally.
- Mosqueda convicted of two deliveries: oxycodone and hydrocodone, under I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A).
- The state sought restitution under I.C. § 37-2732(k) for investigative costs; initial hearing was vacated for review.
- District court ultimately ordered restitution totaling $5,178.50, including costs for officers attending a restitution hearing.
- Mosqueda appeals, challenging the restitution scope, and claims the sentences are excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers’ time at restitution hearing is compensable | Mosqueda: not authorized by statute; only investigation costs. | Mosqueda: costs for hearing attendance not within statute; inflated hours. | Yes; attendance costs may be reimbursable under the statute. |
| Whether later Garcia-delivery investigations fall within the restitution for the violations | State: investigations tied to violations for which Mosqueda was convicted. | Mosqueda: cannot recoup for non-charged, non-convicted acts. | Costs linked to the violation may be recovered; discretion to limit amounts exists. |
| Whether the restitution award is vindictive punishment for challenging the restitution | State: no vindictive punishment; restitution civil in nature. | Mosqueda: sought to challenge; could be coercive. | Fundamental error doctrine does not apply; restitution proceedings are civil. |
| Whether the sentence length is excessive given Mosqueda’s history | State: within statutory limits, warranted by criminal history. | Mosqueda: excessive, novel to his drug-sell case, back pain justification. | No abuse of discretion; sentences affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hensley, 145 Idaho 852, 187 P.3d 1227 (2008) (statutory interpretation with plain meaning; free review of law)
- State v. Ferguson, 138 Idaho 659, 67 P.3d 1271 (Ct. App. 2002) (restitution is not part of the criminal sentence; civil proceeding)
- State v. Bybee, 115 Idaho 541, 768 P.2d 804 (Ct. App. 1989) (restitution proceedings distinct from sentencing; preserved differently)
- State v. Levicek, 131 Idaho 130, 953 P.2d 214 (1998) (review of restitution award under civil approach; method of appeal)
- State v. Field, 144 Idaho 559, 165 P.3d 273 (Ct. App. 2007) (fundamental error not available for restitution claims on appeal)