IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 35128
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2009 Opinion No. 61
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 27, 2009
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
PAUL LAWRENCE ROGERS, JR., )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.
Order of termination from drug court program and imposition and execution of
sentence, affirmed.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
______________________________________________
Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge
and GRATTON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Paul Lawrence Rogers, Jr. appeals from the district court’s order terminating him from
the Ada County Drug Court Program. He asserts that one of the seventeen rules violations found
by the district court was not supported by substantial evidence and that the district court’s
decision to terminate him from the program was an abuse of discretion. We affirm.
Rogers pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine in February 2004 and was allowed
to enroll in the Ada County Drug Court Program. The district court first terminated Rogers from
the program in July 2004. That order was reversed on appeal because Rogers was not afforded
procedural due process in the termination proceedings. See State v. Rogers, 144 Idaho 738, 170
P.3d 881 (2007). On remand, Rogers was given formal written notice of twenty alleged
1
violations of the terms of the program and was afforded all additional process due him, including
disclosure of the evidence against him, the opportunity to present witnesses, and the opportunity
to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses.
Participation in the Ada County Drug Court Program requires a defendant to first plead
guilty to the substantive offense. In Rogers, our Supreme Court held that because of this
requirement, an Ada County Drug Court participant has a liberty interest at stake and is entitled
to the same due process when facing termination from the program as that afforded probationers
facing revocation of probation. Rogers, 144 Idaho at 740-43, 170 P.3d at 883-86. Consequently,
the parties assume that the same general standards applicable to appellate review of a revocation
of probation apply by analogy to review of a termination from a drug court program. We find no
reason to disagree with this assumption.
We review the trial court’s order terminating participation in a drug court program to
determine whether the trial court erred in finding that the participant had failed to comply with
the terms of the program. It is within the trial court’s discretion to terminate participation in a
drug court program if any of the terms and conditions of the program have been violated. The
trial court’s finding that a violation has been proved will be upheld on appeal if there is
substantial evidence in the record to support the finding.
After a hearing, the state withdrew two of the twenty alleged violations and the district
court found that a third had not been proved. However, the district court found that the state had
sustained its burden of proving the remaining seventeen violations. In this appeal, Rogers first
asserts that one of the seventeen rules violations found by the district court, namely soliciting
female drug court participants to work in his proposed adult entertainment business, was not
supported by substantial evidence. We conclude that we need not address the correctness of this
individual finding in light of the sixteen remaining proven and unchallenged violations.
The district court found that Rogers had violated the terms of the program by failing to
attend the initial orientation, by failing to contact his mentor, by failing to pay his program fees,
by failing to inform a physician that he was a drug addict when obtaining prescription
medication, by failing to attend group counseling (three times), by failing to supply a sample for
urinalysis, by failing to report for a urinalysis (three times), and by using methamphetamine (four
times). Based upon these findings, the district court concluded that the program was not
successful with regard to Rogers and that his participation should be terminated. Rogers does
2
not contest these findings. In light of Rogers’ poor performance while enrolled in the program,
we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to terminate his participation in it.
The district court’s order terminating Rogers from the Ada County Drug Court Program
and imposing and executing sentence is affirmed.
3