LANSING, Chief Judge.
The State of Idaho appeals from the district court’s order dismissing a charge against Benjamin Dorn after Dorn completed probation for the offense. The State contends that the district court erred in determining that Dorn qualified for relief from his conviction under Idaho’s expungement statute. We reverse.
I.
BACKGROUND
Dorn was charged with and pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1506. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a two-year determinate term, but suspended the sentence and placed Dorn on [405]*405probation for four years. After successfully completing probation, Dorn filed a motion to dismiss the case or amend his conviction pursuant to I.C. § 19-2604, which authorizes dismissal or reduction of some types of charges if a defendant has completed probation without violations. The State opposed the motion, arguing that because his conviction was for sexual abuse of a child, Dorn was ineligible for relief under section 19-2604. The district court granted Dorn’s motion, ordering that the case against him be dismissed. The court’s order also stated, however, that the dismissal “does not set aside the guilty plea or vacate the conviction.” The district court expressed the view that the order “has the effect of restoring the defendant to his civil rights, but does not relieve the defendant of his obligation to register as a sex offender.” The State now appeals.
II.
ANALYSIS
The statute under which Dorn sought relief is I.C. § 19-2604 which, in limited circumstances, allows a trial court to either dismiss a criminal case or reduce a felony conviction to a misdemeanor. That statute provides:
1. 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, the court may, if convinced by the showing made that there is no longer cause for continuing the period of probation, and if it be compatible with the public interest, terminate the sentence or set aside the plea of guilty or conviction of the defendant, and finally dismiss the case and discharge the defendant____The final dismissal of the case as herein provided shall have the effect of restoring the defendant to his civil rights.
2. If sentence has been imposed but suspended during the first one hundred and eighty (180) days of a sentence to the custody of the state board of correction, and the defendant placed upon probation ... upon application of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney, or upon the court’s own motion, and upon satisfactory showing that the defendant has at all times complied with the terms and conditions of his probation, the court may amend the judgment of conviction ... and the amended judgment may be deemed to be a misdemeanor conviction.
3.Subsection 2 of this section shall not apply to any judgment of conviction for a violation of the provisions of sections 18-1506, 18-1507 or 18-1508, Idaho Code. A judgment of conviction for a violation of the provisions of any section listed in this subsection shall not be expunged from a person’s criminal record.
The State contends that the district court’s order was erroneous because Dorn’s conviction was for violation of I.C. § 18-1506, relief from which is specifically barred by subsection (3) of section 19-2604. In response, Dorn argues that subsection (3) prohibits only the “expungement” of a defendant’s record, not the dismissal of the case against him. Dorn contends that the district court’s actions were in compliance with the statute because the court merely dismissed the case and did not expunge the conviction from Dorn’s record.
The issue presented is one of statutory construction, a matter over which we exercise free review. State v. Spor, 134 Idaho 315, 320, 1 P.3d 816, 821 (Ct.App.2000). The language of a statute is to be given its plain, obvious, and rational meaning. State v. Scott, 135 Idaho 457, 459, 19 P.3d 771, 773 (Ct.App.2001). If a statute is ambiguous, then it must be construed to mean what the legislature intended it to mean. Miller v. State, 110 Idaho 298, 299, 715 P.2d 968, 969 (1986). To determine that intent, we may examine not only the literal words of the statute but also the reasonableness of proposed constructions, the policy underlying the statute, and its legislative history. Lopez v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 136 Idaho 174, 179, 30 P.3d 952, 957 (2001); Adamson v. Blanchard, 133 Idaho 602, 605, 990 P.2d 1213, 1216 (1999); Leliefeld v. John[406]*406son, 104 Idaho 357, 367, 659 P.2d 111, 121 (1983).
We conclude that the district court’s order granting relief to Dorn is invalid because the dismissal of a case for sexual abuse of a child pursuant to subsection (1) of the statute is expressly forbidden by- subsection (3), which specifies that a conviction for that offense “shall not be expunged from a person’s criminal record.” Dorn argues that the subsection (3) prohibition against expungement refers to something other than dismissal under subsection (1). Expungement, he asserts, amounts to an erasure of a criminal record, not a dismissal of a charge. Dorn’s argument is unpersuasive, for Idaho law authorizes no type of expungement of a criminal record for adult offenders other than that authorized in § 19-2604.1 The term “expunged” in subsection (3) therefore must refer to the dismissal of an action under subsection (1). That the legislature meant “expunged” to refer to the dismissal of the case under subsection (1) is confirmed by the preamble to the 1989 bill that added subsection (3) to the statute. The bill’s statement of purpose included the following:
This legislation would amend § 19-2604, Idaho Code, so that there would be no allowable amendment of judgment afforded to offenders of certain crimes against children: 18-1506, felony sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years; 18-1507, sexual exploitation of a child; or 18-1508, lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen. Currently, under the appropriate circumstances, a record of conviction may be either reduced to a misdemeanor or expunged. This legislation would mean that once an offender is convicted of one of the aforementioned crimes, he or she would always be a felon.
H.B. 262 (1989). The comment that the then-existing law allowed that a conviction be “expunged” expresses the legislative understanding that relief under subsection (1) constituted an expungement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
LANSING, Chief Judge.
The State of Idaho appeals from the district court’s order dismissing a charge against Benjamin Dorn after Dorn completed probation for the offense. The State contends that the district court erred in determining that Dorn qualified for relief from his conviction under Idaho’s expungement statute. We reverse.
I.
BACKGROUND
Dorn was charged with and pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1506. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a two-year determinate term, but suspended the sentence and placed Dorn on [405]*405probation for four years. After successfully completing probation, Dorn filed a motion to dismiss the case or amend his conviction pursuant to I.C. § 19-2604, which authorizes dismissal or reduction of some types of charges if a defendant has completed probation without violations. The State opposed the motion, arguing that because his conviction was for sexual abuse of a child, Dorn was ineligible for relief under section 19-2604. The district court granted Dorn’s motion, ordering that the case against him be dismissed. The court’s order also stated, however, that the dismissal “does not set aside the guilty plea or vacate the conviction.” The district court expressed the view that the order “has the effect of restoring the defendant to his civil rights, but does not relieve the defendant of his obligation to register as a sex offender.” The State now appeals.
II.
ANALYSIS
The statute under which Dorn sought relief is I.C. § 19-2604 which, in limited circumstances, allows a trial court to either dismiss a criminal case or reduce a felony conviction to a misdemeanor. That statute provides:
1. 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, the court may, if convinced by the showing made that there is no longer cause for continuing the period of probation, and if it be compatible with the public interest, terminate the sentence or set aside the plea of guilty or conviction of the defendant, and finally dismiss the case and discharge the defendant____The final dismissal of the case as herein provided shall have the effect of restoring the defendant to his civil rights.
2. If sentence has been imposed but suspended during the first one hundred and eighty (180) days of a sentence to the custody of the state board of correction, and the defendant placed upon probation ... upon application of the defendant, the prosecuting attorney, or upon the court’s own motion, and upon satisfactory showing that the defendant has at all times complied with the terms and conditions of his probation, the court may amend the judgment of conviction ... and the amended judgment may be deemed to be a misdemeanor conviction.
3.Subsection 2 of this section shall not apply to any judgment of conviction for a violation of the provisions of sections 18-1506, 18-1507 or 18-1508, Idaho Code. A judgment of conviction for a violation of the provisions of any section listed in this subsection shall not be expunged from a person’s criminal record.
The State contends that the district court’s order was erroneous because Dorn’s conviction was for violation of I.C. § 18-1506, relief from which is specifically barred by subsection (3) of section 19-2604. In response, Dorn argues that subsection (3) prohibits only the “expungement” of a defendant’s record, not the dismissal of the case against him. Dorn contends that the district court’s actions were in compliance with the statute because the court merely dismissed the case and did not expunge the conviction from Dorn’s record.
The issue presented is one of statutory construction, a matter over which we exercise free review. State v. Spor, 134 Idaho 315, 320, 1 P.3d 816, 821 (Ct.App.2000). The language of a statute is to be given its plain, obvious, and rational meaning. State v. Scott, 135 Idaho 457, 459, 19 P.3d 771, 773 (Ct.App.2001). If a statute is ambiguous, then it must be construed to mean what the legislature intended it to mean. Miller v. State, 110 Idaho 298, 299, 715 P.2d 968, 969 (1986). To determine that intent, we may examine not only the literal words of the statute but also the reasonableness of proposed constructions, the policy underlying the statute, and its legislative history. Lopez v. State, Indus. Special Indem. Fund, 136 Idaho 174, 179, 30 P.3d 952, 957 (2001); Adamson v. Blanchard, 133 Idaho 602, 605, 990 P.2d 1213, 1216 (1999); Leliefeld v. John[406]*406son, 104 Idaho 357, 367, 659 P.2d 111, 121 (1983).
We conclude that the district court’s order granting relief to Dorn is invalid because the dismissal of a case for sexual abuse of a child pursuant to subsection (1) of the statute is expressly forbidden by- subsection (3), which specifies that a conviction for that offense “shall not be expunged from a person’s criminal record.” Dorn argues that the subsection (3) prohibition against expungement refers to something other than dismissal under subsection (1). Expungement, he asserts, amounts to an erasure of a criminal record, not a dismissal of a charge. Dorn’s argument is unpersuasive, for Idaho law authorizes no type of expungement of a criminal record for adult offenders other than that authorized in § 19-2604.1 The term “expunged” in subsection (3) therefore must refer to the dismissal of an action under subsection (1). That the legislature meant “expunged” to refer to the dismissal of the case under subsection (1) is confirmed by the preamble to the 1989 bill that added subsection (3) to the statute. The bill’s statement of purpose included the following:
This legislation would amend § 19-2604, Idaho Code, so that there would be no allowable amendment of judgment afforded to offenders of certain crimes against children: 18-1506, felony sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years; 18-1507, sexual exploitation of a child; or 18-1508, lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen. Currently, under the appropriate circumstances, a record of conviction may be either reduced to a misdemeanor or expunged. This legislation would mean that once an offender is convicted of one of the aforementioned crimes, he or she would always be a felon.
H.B. 262 (1989). The comment that the then-existing law allowed that a conviction be “expunged” expresses the legislative understanding that relief under subsection (1) constituted an expungement. Even absent this clear expression of the legislative intent, it would be illogical to conclude that a legislature that prohibited the reduction of convictions for sex offenses against children from felonies to misdemeanors under subsection (2) would nevertheless authorize complete dismissal of such charges under subsection (1).
Second, even if it were not expressly prohibited by I.C. § 19-2604(3), we think that the order at issue here would be invalid for another reason. The order purports to dismiss the charge against Dorn without vacating the conviction entered against him. Such an outcome cannot be legally accomplished. If a charge has been dismissed, there cannot at the same time remain a conviction for that charge; upon dismissal there no longer exists a case in which a judgment of conviction can stand. Thus, in Manners v. State Bd. of Veterinary Med., 107 Idaho 950, 952, 694 P.2d 1298, 1300 (1985), the Idaho Supreme Court noted that where the district court had allowed a convicted defendant to withdraw his guilty plea and enter a plea of not guilty, and had entered an order dismissing the charge pursuant to § 19-2604(1), the conviction was “erased.”2 The district court here erred in its assertion that an order could dismiss the case without vacating Dorn’s conviction.
In summary, the relief sought by Dorn and granted by the district court is prohibited by statute and is not procedurally possible. Accordingly, the order of the district court is reversed.
Judge Pro Tem WOOD concurs.