State v. Samuel Thomas Glenn, 156 Idaho 22

Glenn pled guilty to a felony DUI in 2001, received suspended sentence and probation; after probation he moved under I.C. § 19-2604(1) to set aside the plea and the district court dismissed the case in 2007.
In 2010 Glenn was charged with another DUI; the State sought enhanced sentencing under I.C. § 18-8005(9) based on the 2001 felony DUI within the prior fifteen years.
Glenn moved (in 2011) to dismiss the 2010 indictment arguing the 2001 conviction was set aside under § 19-2604 and thus could not be used as an enhancement predicate.
The State opposed as untimely under I.C.R. 12(d) and relied on Court of Appeals precedent (State v. Reed) allowing use of set-aside pleas for enhancement; the district court denied Glenn’s motion and he entered a conditional guilty plea and appealed.
The Idaho Supreme Court invoked plenary review to decide the substantive statutory question despite procedural timeliness concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 19-2604(1) dismissal prevents a prior guilty plea from counting for § 18-8005 enhancement	Glenn: a § 19-2604 dismissal makes the prior conviction a legal nullity so it cannot be used for enhancement	State: § 18-8005 looks to whether a person "pled guilty or was found guilty" and that determination remains even if the judgment was later set aside; Reed controls	Court: § 18-8005 unambiguously applies to prior pleas/findings of guilt regardless of later § 19-2604 dismissal; enhancement allowed
Whether the district court abused discretion by hearing Glenn's untimely motion under I.C.R. 12(d)	Glenn: sought dismissal on merits (implicitly arguing timeliness should not bar consideration)	State: motion untimely and no record of good cause/excusable neglect to enlarge time	Court: exercised plenary review to decide merits; noted district court should have articulated basis but resolved the statutory issue on its merits

State v. Reed, 149 Idaho 901, 243 P.3d 1089 (Ct. App.) (set-aside guilty plea may be used to enhance sentence under § 18-8005)
Barwick v. State, 94 Idaho 139, 483 P.2d 670 (1971) (vacated convictions described as a "nullity" in certain contexts)
State v. Robinson, 143 Idaho 306, 142 P.3d 729 (2006) (discusses limits of § 19-2604 relief and interplay with other statutes)
State v. Bever, 118 Idaho 80, 794 P.2d 1136 (1990) (sentencing enhancement focuses on a prior determination of guilt)
United States v. Sharp, 145 Idaho 403, 179 P.3d 1059 (2008) (an outstanding withheld judgment based on a guilty plea can qualify as a conviction for enhancement purposes)