State v. Wagy

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51398

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 21, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DEANNE RACHELLE WAGY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, Senior District Judge.

Order denying motion to dismiss withheld judgment, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

GRATTON, Chief Judge
Deanne Rachelle Wagy appeals from the district court’s order denying the motion to
dismiss her withheld judgment. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Wagy pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine), Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and entered an Alford1 plea to felony possession of marijuana (possessing
more than three ounces), I.C. § 37-2732(e). The district court withheld judgment and placed Wagy
on probation for a period of three years. Among other terms and conditions of probation, the
district court ordered Wagy to pay $285.50 in court costs and fees for each count, to pay a fine of
$750 for each count, to reimburse Canyon County $350 for the cost of her legal representation, to

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
1
pay a monthly supervision fee as set by the supervising officer, and to complete 100 hours of
community service.
Wagy filed a motion to dismiss the withheld judgment requesting a hearing and indicating
that she would complete all the terms of her probation by the hearing date. Wagy provided no
supporting evidence or documentation. The State noted that Wagy still had an outstanding balance
on her obligations in excess of $2,000. The motion was ultimately withdrawn at a subsequent
hearing to give Wagy additional time to finish paying her outstanding financial obligations and to
complete the community service. The district court continued the hearing for one month.
At the subsequent hearing, Wagy acknowledged that there were still fines and costs to be
paid. The district court noted that the motion had been filed without any supporting affidavit and
that the community service requirement had not been satisfied. The district court indicated that
Wagy could renew her motion and show compliance through an affidavit or evidence in the record.
Eighteen months later, Wagy filed another motion to dismiss the withheld judgment.
Again, Wagy did not support the motion with an affidavit or documentation. Instead, Wagy’s
counsel represented at the hearing that Wagy had paid all her financial obligations, that the
probationary period had expired, and there had been no probation violations. The State again noted
the lack of evidence to support the motion. Wagy’s counsel responded that she had reviewed
iCourt and no money was shown as owing, but did not address whether Wagy had completed
community service. After noting the lack of documentation supporting the motion, the district
court addressed Wagy regarding the community service and Wagy acknowledged that she had not
completed the requirement. The district court indicated that it was not inclined to grant the motion
as Wagy had not fully satisfied the terms and conditions of probation. The district court stated that
until those conditions were satisfied it could not “make a factual finding that you at all times
complied with the terms of your probation” because of the lack of documentation as to the financial
obligations and failure to complete community service. Wagy appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The district court’s decision to grant or deny relief under I.C. § 19-2604(1), including
dismissing the case, is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Dieter, 153 Idaho 730, 733,
291 P.3d 413, 416 (2012). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the
appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly

2
perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3)
acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4)
reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149,
158 (2018).
III.
ANALYSIS
Wagy claims the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss her withheld
judgment because the district court did not act consistently with the applicable legal standards.
Specifically, Wagy claims that the court relied on an outdated version of I.C. § 19-2604(1) instead
of the current version when the court denied the motion because it could not find that Wagy had
at all times complied with the terms of the probation. Wagy also claims the district court failed to
exercise reason by not determining whether good cause existed under the current version of the
statute and because good cause existed to grant dismissal.
The pre-2011 version of I.C. § 19-2604(1) provided for dismissal under the following
circumstances: “If sentence has been imposed but suspended, or if sentence has been withheld,
upon application of the defendant and upon satisfactory showing that the defendant has at all times
complied with the terms and conditions upon which he was placed on probation.” As relevant
here, the current version of I.C. § 19-2604(1) provides:
(1)(a) Application for relief under this subsection may be made by the
following persons who have pled guilty to or been found guilty of a crime:
(i) A defendant whose sentence has been suspended or who has
received a withheld judgment;
....
(b) Upon application of the defendant and upon satisfactory showing that:
(i) The court did not find, and the defendant did not admit, in any
probation violation proceeding that the defendant violated any of the terms
or conditions of any probation that may have been imposed;
....
the court, if convinced by the showing made that there is no longer cause for
continuing the period of probation should the defendant be on probation at the time
of the application, and that there is good cause for granting the requested relief,
may terminate the sentence or set aside the plea of guilty or conviction of the
defendant, and finally dismiss the case and discharge the defendant.
I.C. § 19-2604(1).
Wagy argues “[i]t appears that the district court applied the old standard set forth in Idaho
Code section 19-2604,” before it was amended in 2011, which required defendants to show they

3
at all times complied with probation. Wagy points to the district court’s statement that the court
could not “make a factual finding that you at all times complied with the terms of your probation”
because of the lack of documentation as to the financial obligations and failure to complete
community service as evidence that the court relied on the wrong legal standard. According to
Wagy, the district court should have inquired instead as to “whether she completed her
probationary term without the district court finding or her admitting to a violation of the terms or
conditions of her probation as part of a probation violation proceeding,” consistent with the current
language in I.C. § 19-2604(1).
The State argues that while the district court made the statement regarding complying with
the terms of probation, this was a single reference in the transcript, which alone does not show the
court was relying on the old version of the statute. The State argues that a court retains broad
discretion to consider all relevant factors in determining whether good cause is shown, including
whether the terms and conditions of probation have been satisfied. Further, the State points out
that the district court found that Wagy conceded failure to comply with the terms of probation and
failed to support her motion with any evidence, which weighed against a finding of good cause to
dismiss the withheld judgment. We agree.
As an initial matter, Wagy did not submit evidence by way of affidavit or from the record
that she had not been accused of or found to have violated her probation. The district court
indicated that while the court would like to grant the motion, there was no evidence that Wagy
“completed everything satisfactorily and were never accused of violating your probation and the
Court never found you violated your probation.” Consequently, Wagy failed to provide evidence
that she satisfied the current version of the statute, namely, having never been accused of or found
to have violated probation. Unsworn oral or written representations, even those of an officer of
the court, are not evidence. State v. Nelson, 161 Idaho 692, 696, 390 P.3d 418, 422 (2017).
Nonethless, under the terms of the statute, the determination that a defendant has not been accused
of or violated her probation is only a prerequisite finding before engaging in the determination of
whether good cause for dismissal has been shown.
The district court was within its discretion to require evidence of satisfaction of the terms
of probation in finding good cause. In determining whether to grant relief, the district court is not
limited to considering only the showing made in satisfaction of I.C. § 19-2604(1)(b). State v.
Gomez, 161 Idaho 873, 876, 392 P.3d 525, 528 (Ct. App. 2017). In conducting a good cause

4
inquiry, the court is not limited to asking whether there were any formal probation violations but
may consider a defendant’s entire performance on probation to assess good cause for dismissal.
In this instance, the district court denied relief because Wagy failed to present evidence or a record
that she had satisfied her financial obligations, and she admittedly had not completed the
community service requirement.2
Relative to Wagy’s first motion to dismiss, the district court informed Wagy that she could
refile the motion with evidence of compliance with the terms and conditions of probation. Upon
refiling, Wagy again failed to provide evidence of satisfaction of her financial obligations and
acknowledged failure to complete the community service obligation. While the court again
indicated that Wagy could refile the motion, Wagy instead appealed. The district court was not
required to dismiss the withheld judgment merely upon a showing that no probation violation had
been accused or found, and the probationary term had expired. The court has broad discretion to
consider the record and any evidence relative to performance of probation in making its decision.
The district court consistently made known to Wagy that evidence of satisfactory performance of
all the terms and conditions of probation was required before the court would “be inclined” to
grant the motion. In fact, at sentencing, the district court told Wagy that getting “a withheld
judgment on two felonies is a big deal,” and, as such, Wagy needed to “absolutely comply with
the terms and conditions of probation.” The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Wagy’s motion to dismiss her withheld judgment.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Wagy has failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion in denying her
motion to dismiss the withheld judgment. Therefore, the order of the district court denying Wagy’s
motion to dismiss her withheld judgment is affirmed.
Judge HUSKEY and Judge LORELLO CONCUR.

2
The Court notes that the community service was mandated by statute. Idaho Code § 37-
2738(5) provides that, “when granted a probationary period of any sort whatsoever,” controlled-
substance offenders “shall . . . be required by the court to complete a period of not less than one
hundred (100) hours of community service work.” (Emphasis added.)
5