State v. Jones

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50342

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 24, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL LOUIS JONES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Order revoking probation, affirmed.

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

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

LORELLO, Judge
Michael Louis Jones appeals from the order revoking his probation. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Jones pled guilty to an amended charge of concealment of
evidence (I.C. § 18-2603) and was sentenced to a unified term of five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Jones to
participate in the rider program. Following completion of his rider, the district court suspended
the sentence and placed Jones on probation. As a term of probation, Jones was ordered to complete
one hundred hours of community service by October 30, 2020.

1
Jones’ community service log was filed by the community service clerk on June 15, 2022.
The community service log contained a notation that the hours Jones reported could not be
confirmed and that the contact information provided was invalid. On September 16, 2022, the
district court filed a notice of hearing for an order to show cause for “Failure to Provide Proof of
Completing Community Service.” Jones’ probationary period had a completion date of October 2,
2022.
At the hearing on the order to show cause, held October 24, 2022, Jones denied that he
failed to complete his community service by the date ordered. The district court, therefore,
scheduled a probation violation evidentiary hearing. At the evidentiary hearing, Jones moved to
dismiss, arguing the district court did not have jurisdiction over the probation violation
proceedings because the proceedings were not properly or timely initiated. The district court
denied the motion. Following the presentation of evidence, the district court found that Jones
falsified his community service record and subsequently falsified letters in an attempt to
corroborate the false community service record after the district court issued its order to show
cause. The district court, therefore, found Jones violated his probation by failing to complete
community service, ordered him to serve twenty-four days in custody in lieu of the remaining 97.5
community service hours Jones did not perform, and extended his probation for an additional year.
Jones appeals.
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law, over which this Court exercises free
review. State v. Jones, 140 Idaho 755, 757, 101 P.3d 699, 701 (2004).
III.
ANALYSIS
Jones argues that the district court erred when it denied his motion to dismiss the probation
violation proceedings because the district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the alleged
probation violation. Jones’ jurisdictional argument is predicated on the assertion that neither the
community service log sheet nor the notice of hearing was sufficient to initiate probation violation
proceedings. The State responds that the district court did not err in its denial of the motion to
dismiss because the community service log sheet and the notice of hearing were sufficient to

2
initiate probation violation proceedings. We hold that the district court’s initiation of probation
violation proceedings was sufficient and that Jones has failed to show error in the denial of his
motion to dismiss those proceedings for lack of jurisdiction.
Either a motion or its functional equivalent is sufficient to initiate a probation violation
proceeding. See State v. Ligon-Bruno, 152 Idaho 274, 278, 270 P.3d 1059, 1063 (Ct. App. 2011).
In determining what constitutes the functional equivalent of a motion, it is not the title of the
document that matters but, rather, the information contained therein. Id. As long as the probation
violation proceedings commence during the period of probation, the trial court has jurisdiction to
adjudicate the alleged violation even if the final adjudication occurs after the probationary period
ends. Id.
The district court initiated the probation violation proceedings in this case prior to the
expiration of Jones’ probationary period by filing an order to show cause regarding his “failure to
provide proof of completing community service.” The show cause order was based on a
community service log for Jones with a notation that reads: “Numbers given are not valid with
contact names, emailed [Jones] regarding this, tried to contact by phone several times,
6/15/2022-6/21/2022, T[errie] D[rury].”1 Also submitted with the log was an email from Drury to
Jones, advising him: “Please see the attached log sheet, I’ve pointed out the agencies I need you
to clarify with the name and numbers of the Agencies. I cannot read them as they are not clear
and the numbers are not answering valid.” The district court found that the information contained
in the notice of hearing in conjunction with the community service log was sufficient to initiate
probation violation proceedings regarding the term of Jones’ probation requiring him to complete
one hundred hours of community service.
Jones argues that, because the community service log “contained no formal accusation by
a probation officer that alleged [Jones] had violated his probation,” it could not have provided the
required notice on “how and when” he allegedly violated his probation. We disagree. The
community service log contained Jones’ name and case number, the number of hours that were
ordered, and the date the hours were to be completed by. The community service log contained a

1
The record indicates that the initials on the note, “TD,” refer to Terrie Drury, a Kootenai
County employee.

3
list of hours Jones claimed he completed and the agency at which he allegedly completed them,
along with contact names and phone numbers for individuals who could purportedly verify the
information on the log. The note on the community service log from Drury, along with the
accompanying email exchange between Drury and Jones, indicated the information Jones provided
could not be verified. Based on this information, the district court set a show cause hearing
identifying the issue as Jones’ failure to provide proof of community service hours. This
information was sufficient to put Jones on notice regarding the probationary term and the alleged
violation of that term, and Jones was afforded the opportunity to be heard on the allegation at the
show cause hearing and the subsequent evidentiary hearing. See Ligon-Bruno, 152 Idaho at 278,
270 P.3d at 1063 (holding that report of probation violation which contained “the relevant terms
of the defendant’s probation, provided specific information concerning how and when those terms
were allegedly violated, and requested that the [trial] court schedule a hearing” was sufficient to
commence probation violation proceedings). Moreover, because the proceedings were initiated
prior to the expiration of Jones’ probation, the district court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the
probation violation. Jones has failed to show the district court erred in denying his motion to
dismiss.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Jones has failed to show the district court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because
the community service log and notice of hearing were sufficient to initiate probation violation
proceedings, and the proceedings were initiated prior to the expiration of Jones’ probationary
period. Accordingly, the district court’s order revoking probation is affirmed.
Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge HUSKEY, CONCUR.

4