Alford plea in Idaho

2026FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2019, Best entered a plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), (an “Alford plea”), to one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor child.

2021After the plea colloquy, Bowlin entered an Alford plea and the State set forth the evidence that it would offer to support the indictment if the case proceeded to trial: a deputy found a 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 2 suspicious baggie containing what appeared to be an illegal substance in the jail’s lobby; the deputy reviewed the security footage from the lobby and determined a visitor dropped the baggie; officers were able to identify the visitor as Bowlin through the identification she provided when visiting the facility; and the contents of the baggie tested positive

2022Therefore, even though it is preferred for the lower courts to make express factual findings during the plea, it is not absolutely required because an Alford plea “may be accepted if there is a strong factual basis for it.” Sparrow, 102 Idaho at 61 , 625 P.2d at 415 (emphasis added).

2022Therefore, even though it is preferred for the lower courts to make express factual findings during the plea, it is not absolutely required because an Alford plea “may be accepted if there is a strong factual basis for it.” Sparrow, 102 Idaho at 61 , 625 P.2d at 415 (emphasis added).

2022Second, in both cases the trial judge may not 3 The trial judge inquired, “Are you satisfied there is a factual basis to support a plea of guilty to this charge?” to which counsel replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” State v. Ramirez, 122 Idaho 830, 834 , 839 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Ct. App. 1992). 4 The Ramirez Court also pointed out that other charges were dismissed.

2022Second, in both cases the trial judge may not 3 The trial judge inquired, “Are you satisfied there is a factual basis to support a plea of guilty to this charge?” to which counsel replied, “Yes, Your Honor.” State v. Ramirez, 122 Idaho 830, 834 , 839 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Ct. App. 1992). 4 The Ramirez Court also pointed out that other charges were dismissed.

2018See State v. Baker , 153 Idaho 692 , 696, 290 P.3d 1284 , 1288 (Ct. App. 2012) (trial court did not err in considering defendant's lack of remorse at sentencing after taking an Alford plea).

2018See State v. Baker , 153 Idaho 692 , 696, 290 P.3d 1284 , 1288 (Ct. App. 2012) (trial court did not err in considering defendant's lack of remorse at sentencing after taking an Alford plea).

2014Id. 2 The State concedes in its brief on appeal that Stadtmiller’s contention that the district court applied an incorrect standard in deciding whether to accept his Alford plea “appears to be well-taken.” 4 Here the district court made it very clear why the court would not accept Stadtmiller’s plea: [B]ased on what you’ve said, Mr. Stadtmiller, I cannot accept your plea.

2010Schoger v. State, 148 Idaho 622, 628 , 226 P.3d 1269, 1275 (2010). 4 Hill does not argue, nor provide authority, that he had a right to present his guilty plea in the form of an Alford plea.

2013State v. Ramirez, 122 Idaho 830, 834 , 839 P.2d 1244, 1248 (Ct. App. 1992); Amerson, 119 Idaho at 996 , 812 P.2d at 303 .

1993Dye cites Amerson v. State, 119 Idaho 994 , 812 P.2d 301 (Ct.App.1991), for the principle that although a court is not ordinarily required to examine the factual basis of a guilty plea, where an Alford plea is made, the court should inquire as to the factual basis of the plea.

2020See State v. Coffin, 104 Idaho 543, 547-48 , 661 P.2d 328, 332-33 (1983) (stating rule that, under Alford, a voluntary plea of guilty may be accepted by the court even if defendant maintains innocence); State v. Magill, 119 Idaho 218, 219 , 804 P.2d 947, 948 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that an Alford plea waived objections to venue).

2020See State v. Coffin, 104 Idaho 543, 547-48 , 661 P.2d 328, 332-33 (1983) (stating rule that, under Alford, a voluntary plea of guilty may be accepted by the court even if defendant maintains innocence); State v. Magill, 119 Idaho 218, 219 , 804 P.2d 947, 948 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that an Alford plea waived objections to venue).

2024State v. Kimbley, 173 Idaho 149 , 157, 539 P.3d 969, 977 (2023). 6 Goullette argues in his opening brief that the district court abused its discretion in accepting his Alford plea because the district court acted inconsistently with applicable legal standards.

2024State v. Kimbley, 173 Idaho 149 , 157, 539 P.3d 969, 977 (2023). 6 Goullette argues in his opening brief that the district court abused its discretion in accepting his Alford plea because the district court acted inconsistently with applicable legal standards.

2019Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices BEVAN, STEGNER and Justice Pro Tem TROUT concur. 1 "The curtilage is that area immediately surrounding and associated with a residence in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Christensen , 131 Idaho at 147 , 953 P.2d at 587 . 2 Albertson entered an Alford plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). 3 Albertson does not argue that the Idaho Constitution does or should provide more protection in this scenario than the United States Constitution.

2019Chief Justice BURDICK, and Justices BEVAN, STEGNER and Justice Pro Tem TROUT concur. 1 "The curtilage is that area immediately surrounding and associated with a residence in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Christensen , 131 Idaho at 147 , 953 P.2d at 587 . 2 Albertson entered an Alford plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). 3 Albertson does not argue that the Idaho Constitution does or should provide more protection in this scenario than the United States Constitution.

2018A trial court does not err by considering a defendant's lack of remorse at sentencing, whether after a jury trial, State v. Stevens , 146 Idaho 139 , 148, 191 P.3d 217 , 226 (2008) (the district court did not violate the Fifth Amendment or abuse its discretion by considering Stevens's failure to take responsibility for his actions when fashioning the sentence) or after taking an Alford plea.

2018A trial court does not err by considering a defendant's lack of remorse at sentencing, whether after a jury trial, State v. Stevens , 146 Idaho 139 , 148, 191 P.3d 217 , 226 (2008) (the district court did not violate the Fifth Amendment or abuse its discretion by considering Stevens's failure to take responsibility for his actions when fashioning the sentence) or after taking an Alford plea.

2012Though Crist continually asserted her innocence, which alone is not a just reason to withdraw an Alford plea, Dopp, 124 Idaho at 486 , 861 P.2d at 56 , she also proffered her emotional state and pressure from counsel as reasons to justify withdrawal.

2012Though Crist continually asserted her innocence, which alone is not a just reason to withdraw an Alford plea, Dopp, 124 Idaho at 486 , 861 P.2d at 56 , she also proffered her emotional state and pressure from counsel as reasons to justify withdrawal.

2012See State v. Leon, 142 Idaho 705, 711 , 132 P.3d 462, 468 (Ct.App.2006) (considering the fact the defendant pled guilty through an Alford plea when looking at the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and acceptance of responsibility in reviewing whether the sentence was excessive).

2012See State v. Leon, 142 Idaho 705, 711 , 132 P.3d 462, 468 (Ct.App.2006) (considering the fact the defendant pled guilty through an Alford plea when looking at the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and acceptance of responsibility in reviewing whether the sentence was excessive).

2024The district court essentially concurred with the State during the 3 motion hearing, explaining that he “maintains his factual innocence but standing alone, that’s not enough.” See Hanslovan, 147 Idaho at 537 , 211 P.3d at 782 (“A mere assertion of innocence, by itself, is not grounds to withdraw a guilty plea.”).

2024The district court essentially concurred with the State during the 3 motion hearing, explaining that he “maintains his factual innocence but standing alone, that’s not enough.” See Hanslovan, 147 Idaho at 537 , 211 P.3d at 782 (“A mere assertion of innocence, by itself, is not grounds to withdraw a guilty plea.”).

2020See State v. Coffin, 104 Idaho 543, 547-48 , 661 P.2d 328, 332-33 (1983) (stating rule that, under Alford, a voluntary plea of guilty may be accepted by the court even if defendant maintains innocence); State v. Magill, 119 Idaho 218, 219 , 804 P.2d 947, 948 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that an Alford plea waived objections to venue).

2020See State v. Coffin, 104 Idaho 543, 547-48 , 661 P.2d 328, 332-33 (1983) (stating rule that, under Alford, a voluntary plea of guilty may be accepted by the court even if defendant maintains innocence); State v. Magill, 119 Idaho 218, 219 , 804 P.2d 947, 948 (Ct. App. 1991) (holding that an Alford plea waived objections to venue).

2019See State v. Dye, 124 Idaho 250, 255 , 858 P.2d 789, 794 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting interpretation of 8 guilty is justified by the defendant’s admission that he committed the crime charged against him and his consent that judgment be entered without a trial of any kind.” Alford, 400 U.S. at 32 .

2019See State v. Dye, 124 Idaho 250, 255 , 858 P.2d 789, 794 (Ct. App. 1993) (noting interpretation of 8 guilty is justified by the defendant’s admission that he committed the crime charged against him and his consent that judgment be entered without a trial of any kind.” Alford, 400 U.S. at 32 .

2019Payne v. State, 159 Idaho 879, 884 , 367 P.3d 274, 279 (Ct. App. 2016).

2019Payne v. State, 159 Idaho 879, 884 , 367 P.3d 274, 279 (Ct. App. 2016).

2019See State v. Al-Kotrani, 141 Idaho 66, 69 , 106 P.3d 392, 395 (2005) (holding that a valid plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly given, waives all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses, whether constitutional or statutory, in prior proceedings).

2019See State v. Al-Kotrani, 141 Idaho 66, 69 , 106 P.3d 392, 395 (2005) (holding that a valid plea of guilty, voluntarily and understandingly given, waives all nonjurisdictional defects and defenses, whether constitutional or statutory, in prior proceedings).

2016See also Steele, 153 Idaho 783 , 291 P.3d 466 (Ct. App. 2012).

2016See also Steele, 153 Idaho 783 , 291 P.3d 466 (Ct. App. 2012).

2012Howry, 127 Idaho at 96 , 896 P.2d at 1004 ; see also State v. Murphy, 133 Idaho 489, 494 , 988 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.1999) (holding it is not improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the crime in determining whether rehabilitation efforts would be fruitful); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 870 , 893 P.2d 814, 817 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding the entry of an Alford plea does not require the sentencing court to disregard evidence of the offense or accept a defendant’s assertions of innocence); Stedtfeld, 114 Idaho at 276 , 755 P.2d at 1314 (stating a

2012Howry, 127 Idaho at 96 , 896 P.2d at 1004 ; see also State v. Murphy, 133 Idaho 489, 494 , 988 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.1999) (holding it is not improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the crime in determining whether rehabilitation efforts would be fruitful); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 870 , 893 P.2d 814, 817 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding the entry of an Alford plea does not require the sentencing court to disregard evidence of the offense or accept a defendant’s assertions of innocence); Stedtfeld, 114 Idaho at 276 , 755 P.2d at 1314 (stating a

2012Howry, 127 Idaho at 96 , 896 P.2d at 1004 ; see also State v. Murphy, 133 Idaho 489, 494 , 988 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.1999) (holding it is not improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the crime in determining whether rehabilitation efforts would be fruitful); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 870 , 893 P.2d 814, 817 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding the entry of an Alford plea does not require the sentencing court to disregard evidence of the offense or accept a defendant’s assertions of innocence); Stedtfeld, 114 Idaho at 276 , 755 P.2d at 1314 (stating a

2012Howry, 127 Idaho at 96 , 896 P.2d at 1004 ; see also State v. Murphy, 133 Idaho 489, 494 , 988 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.1999) (holding it is not improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the crime in determining whether rehabilitation efforts would be fruitful); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 870 , 893 P.2d 814, 817 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding the entry of an Alford plea does not require the sentencing court to disregard evidence of the offense or accept a defendant’s assertions of innocence); Stedtfeld, 114 Idaho at 276 , 755 P.2d at 1314 (stating a

2012Howry, 127 Idaho at 96 , 896 P.2d at 1004 ; see also State v. Murphy, 133 Idaho 489, 494 , 988 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.1999) (holding it is not improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the crime in determining whether rehabilitation efforts would be fruitful); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 870 , 893 P.2d 814, 817 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding the entry of an Alford plea does not require the sentencing court to disregard evidence of the offense or accept a defendant’s assertions of innocence); Stedtfeld, 114 Idaho at 276 , 755 P.2d at 1314 (stating a

2012Howry, 127 Idaho at 96 , 896 P.2d at 1004 ; see also State v. Murphy, 133 Idaho 489, 494 , 988 P.2d 715, 720 (Ct.App.1999) (holding it is not improper for a trial court to consider a defendant’s failure to accept responsibility for the crime in determining whether rehabilitation efforts would be fruitful); State v. Stringer, 126 Idaho 867, 870 , 893 P.2d 814, 817 (Ct.App. 1995) (holding the entry of an Alford plea does not require the sentencing court to disregard evidence of the offense or accept a defendant’s assertions of innocence); Stedtfeld, 114 Idaho at 276 , 755 P.2d at 1314 (stating a

2012See State v. Rodriguez, 118 Idaho 957, 960-62 , 801 P.2d 1308, 1311-13 (Ct. App. 1990) (affirming the denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw an Alford plea made before sentencing, but after a co-defendant was acquitted by a jury, determining there was no just reason “for allowing him a change of plea so that he can pursue a second option after he has tested out the first”). 9 Looking to the facts and case law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Crist failed to present a just reason to withdraw her plea.

2012See State v. Rodriguez, 118 Idaho 957, 960-62 , 801 P.2d 1308, 1311-13 (Ct. App. 1990) (affirming the denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw an Alford plea made before sentencing, but after a co-defendant was acquitted by a jury, determining there was no just reason “for allowing him a change of plea so that he can pursue a second option after he has tested out the first”). 9 Looking to the facts and case law, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining Crist failed to present a just reason to withdraw her plea.