State v. Raymond Stuart Nienburg
283 P.3d 808
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Nienburg stopped for DUI; he fled and was chased by an officer.
- Plea agreement: plead guilty to DUI and persistent violator; other charges dismissed; state to recommend a sentence; restitution cap stated; no written plea agreement.
- At sentencing, Boise City sought restitution for pants ($68) and cruiser damage ($1,088.98); the latter was caused when a backup officer struck the dog after Nienburg fled.
- Plea terms stated: restitution “not to exceed $1,156.98”; court treated this as a cap, and defense argued only pants damage was restitution; prosecutor asserted the full amount was covered by the plea.
- Court referenced Gomez to interpret ambiguity but held the plea capped restitution; state conceded none of the claimed restitution was proximately caused by the DUI; court later ordered $68 restitution and remanded.
- Court affirmed the 15-year unified sentence with four years fixed, finding no abuse of discretion given Nienburg’s extensive DUI history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Restitution scope under the plea | Nienburg: cap allowed; no consent to pay all losses | State: should pay full claimed restitution | Only $68 restitution appropriate; cap not exclusive promise to pay all losses. |
| Excessiveness of sentence | Nienburg: sentence excessive given circumstances | Court could have discretion; no abuse shown | Sentence affirmed as within discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Corbus, 150 Idaho 599, 249 P.3d 398 (2011) (causation and restitution standards apply; proximate cause required)
- State v. Hargis, 126 Idaho 727, 889 P.2d 1117 (Ct. App. 1995) (restitution principles when multiple offenses)
- State v. Aubert, 119 Idaho 868, 811 P.2d 44 (Ct. App. 1991) (plea agreements and restitution scope)
- State v. Jafek, 141 Idaho 71, 106 P.3d 397 (2005) (plea agreements governed by contract law; ambiguities favored defendant)
- State v. Peterson, 148 Idaho 593, 226 P.3d 535 (2010) (prosecutor's duty to clarify scope of plea agreement; silence deemed acceptance)
- Cramer v. Slater, 146 Idaho 868, 204 P.3d 508 (2009) (tests for foreseeability and proximate cause in restitution)