Filed: 04/22/2024 12:58:19

Seventh Judicial District, Fremont County

Abbie Mace, Clerk of the Court
By: Deputy Clerk Holstine, Shannon
-

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE

STATE OF I DAHO, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FREMONT

STATE OF I DAHO Case No. CR22-21-1623

Plaintiff,
v ORDER
ON"INTERVENOR'S" MOTIONE [SIC] TO
CHAD GUY DAYBELL, INTERVENE AND CONTIUE [SIC] THE TRIAL
IN THESE PROCEDINGS [SIC]
Defendant.

Based on an attempt by non-party self-styled "Intervenor" Terry S. Ratliff's filed motion

to intervene and continue trial, sent through the Court's electronic filing system on March 29,

2024, at 11:42 p.m. MST, the Court ordered Ratliff to show cause, under I.R.C.P. 11(c)(3), and

explain why Ratliff's pleading did not violate Rule 11(b), as applicable in this case pursuant to

LC.R. 47 and 49. A hearing took place on April 18, 2024, on the Court's initiative.! At the hearing,

the Court found Ratliff's explanations unavailing, in particular when answering to the inquiry of

Ratliff holding himself out as counsel for the Defendant in this case in both caption and multiple

signatures, a patently false representation. The Court determined that Ratliff violated Idaho Rule

of Civil Procedure 11(b) and ordered an imposition of sanctions for Ratliff's conduct." 3

The Court reiterates that Ratliff represents neither party in this action, nor is he himself a

party. The Court has further determined that no exception applies to Idaho's requirement that only

parties to a criminal are permitted to file motions, thus prohibiting Ratfliffs frivolous,

'
Ratliff was contacted by the Court on April I 1, 2024 to seek input on his scheduling availability for an OTSC
hearing. April 18, 2024 was the date Ratliff indicated he was available to appear.
2
At the hearing, the Court directed the attorneys for the State and the attorney for the Defendant to submit a
computation of time expended in receiving, and responding to Ratliff's motion for the Court to make a determination
of reasonableness in assessing fees against Ratliff as an appropriate sanction.
3
Rather than a means for a broad compensatory award for attorney fees, 1.R.C.P. 11(a)(1) is a court-management
tool, meant to focus on discrete pleading abuses or other types of litigation misconduct. State v. Keithly, 155 Idaho
464, 468, 314 P.3d 146, 150 (2013) {internal citations omitted).

Order -
1
unsupported, and unwarranted pleading to remain lodged in the case.a Accordingly, upon the

request ofboth the State of Idaho, the attorney for Defendant Daybell, and its own consideration,

the Court hereby orders that the March 29,2024 motion filed by Ratliff be struck from the case.s

Ratfliff is further admonished to refrain from any future filings in this case, on his own or through

counsel, so long as he represents neither party in this action. The Court will issue a supplemental

order with additional findings, conclusions and sanctions upon receipt ofthe parties' memoranda

of iees incurred.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this LL day of Aprll,2024.

Steven W. Boyce
District Judge

4
Both statute and case law in ldaho make clear that the parlies to a criminal case are the State and the Defendant. LC.
$ 19-104 ('A criminal action is prosecuted in the name ofthe state ofldabo, as a party, against the person charged
with the offense.") St qte !. Poe, 170 Idaho 34, 506 P.3d 897, 903 (2022) (emphasis added). Further, ,S/a/e v. Johnson,
l6'7 ldaho 454,410 P.3d I263 clarifies;
Similarly, a court lacks jurisdiction to hear a case if a person does not have standing because the
case or controversy requirement forjudicial power cannot be satrsfled. Mqrtin v. Camas Cty. ex rel.
Bd. Comm'rs, 150 Idaho 508,512,248 P.3d 1243,1247 (2011). Standing issues may arise when a
non-party attempts to make a motion to the trial court. See Sldte v. Drqper, l5l ldaho 576,597,261
P.3d 853, 874 (201 1).lt Draper, the ldaho Supreme Court found the district court's deferment to a
procedural request by the presentence investigator troubling because "as the investigator was not a
party to the case, he or she has no standing to make a motion to the court. Simply put, it was not the
investigator's role to request a different procedwe for the lpresentence investigation report]." 1d
5
Ratliffretained an attomey who presented to the Coull a 24-page RESPONSE MEMoRANDUM with accompanying
DECLARATIoNS. Because RESPONSE relates to the pleading the Coufi has determined is frivolous and unwarranted, it
will not be lodged in the case.

Order - 2
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this day of April, 2024, the foregoing Order was entered and a true
and correct copy was served upon the parties listed below by mailing, with the correct postage
thereon, or by causing the same to be delivered to their courthouse boxes; by causing the same to
be hand-delivered, by facsimile, or by e-mail.

Parties Served:

Lindsey Blake
prosecutor@co.fremont.id.us

Robert H. Wood
mcpo@co.madison.id.us
Attorneys for State of Idaho

John Prior
john@jpriorlaw.com
Attorney for Defendant

For the limited purpose of providing notice and service of this Order, the following non-party has
been served:

Terry S. Ratliff
ratliff@ratlifflawoffice.com
Non-party filer

Clerk of the District Court

Fremont County, Idaho

by
eputy Clerk 4/22/2024 12:58:41 PM

Order 3
-