High court: Man wrongly dumped from drug court

BOISE – People who enroll in treatment courts to avoid prison time must be given a chance to formally challenge attempts to boot them from such programs, the Idaho Supreme Court said in ruling that a 50-year-old Idaho man was denied due process in a 2004 case.

Paul L. Rogers, a former car dealer in Caldwell, pleaded guilty in 4th District Court in Boise to methamphetamine possession, part of an agreement in which he agreed to complete Ada County’s drug court program.

The district judge agreed to drop separate burglary and attempted grand theft charges, and said if Rogers completed the drug court successfully, the case against him would be dismissed.

In July 2004, however, Judge Ronald Wilper confronted Rogers, saying he’d learned the Oakland, Calif., native had been attempting to get fellow drug court participants to join a prostitution ring. As a result, Rogers was ejected from the drug court program and later sentenced by Wilper to up to 5 years in prison.

In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that because Rogers’ expulsion from the program meant he likely faced prison time for his drug-related guilty plea, he should have been allowed to formally challenge evidence against him that might result in his getting kicked out of the program. The ruling overturned an earlier Idaho Court of Appeals decision.

“Because Rogers did not receive the process due prior to his termination from Ada County drug court program, we vacate his conviction,” wrote Justice Roger Burdick in the opinion issued in late October. “Rogers pleaded guilty in order to participate in the Ada County drug court program and his termination … resulted in his being criminally sentenced and having a felony conviction appear on his record.”

Wilper should have first allowed Rogers a formal hearing similar to those afforded parolees and probationers when they are accused of violating terms of their release from prison, Burdick wrote.

Such a hearing could include written notice of the alleged violation of drug court rules, disclosure of the evidence against him, and a chance to present witnesses and to confront witnesses who said he’d done something wrong.

Wilper said his court anticipated a possible Supreme Court ruling well before last month’s decision. As a result, the drug court in Ada County created a formal process to address the issue. Other drug courts in Idaho have followed suit, he said.

“It protects the individual’s due process rights, to the level that the Supreme Court has required,” Wilper said, adding the ruling “gives us real valuable guidance, with respect to the level of due process that’s required.”

About a third of drug court participants wind up getting expelled from the programs and put in prison, Wilper said.

After being released from the South Idaho Correctional Institution south of Boise last February, Rogers is now a student at Boise State University. He said he hopes his Supreme Court case helps give drug court participants more rights.

“This helps out people in drug court all over Idaho,” Rogers said in an interview. “I’m more satisfied with that than anything. With that safeguard, it wouldn’t have happened to me. Hopefully, the courts won’t let this happen again, and do this from now on.”

After 10 weeks in the drug court program, officials became concerned about Rogers’ attempt to start a business called “Desire, Inc.” Rogers has acknowledged he had been handing out business cards to recruit females, including drug-court participants, although he now maintains he did nothing illegal.

The Supreme Court didn’t rule on whether Rogers did anything improper.

The Idaho attorney general’s office doesn’t plan a further appeal, spokesman Bob Cooper said.

Attorneys for the state and Rogers will likely meet later this year or in early 2008 to discuss the case’s conclusion.