What Happened
Jake Dowhaniuk was charged with Misdemeanor A Criminal Mischief and Third-Degree Felony Aggravated Assault after a conflict with his partner. It is alleged that he hit his girlfriend and damaged her personal vehicle.
Briefly after these charges were filed, a hearing was held to determine Dowhaniuk’s status as he awaits trial. Dowhaniuk’s attorneys requested that he is released on his own recognizance, with a few small requirements he must follow. The state fully opposed this notion due to the violent nature of his charges and extensive criminal history. The state responded by saying that he would need to wear a digital monitoring device and agree to no contact with his girlfriend for them to even consider allowing his release.
With these stipulations in mind, Dowhaniuk spoke to the court and openly agreed to wearing an ankle monitor and staying at home if it meant he could still avoid jail. The state agreed to his proposal, and the court ruled that he would be released once he was fitted for his ankle monitor.
Modification Orders
A few weeks later, a Preliminary hearing was held, where both of Dowhaniuk’s charges were bound over. However, at the end of the meeting, his attorneys requested that Dowhaniuk be released without the ankle monitor condition, since he couldn’t afford it. The court stated that without a motion from the prosecution or word from Dowhaniuk, no changes would be made.
The following days, the state took the court’s words and ran with them. They filed two motions to have Dowhaniuk held in custody without possibility of bail. The second motion detailed his threat to society, and was signed by the court only about an hour after filing. This became the First Modification order of the case.
A few months later, one of Dowhaniuk’s attorneys made an oral argument to have him released with supervision. The state responded with the same arguments of Dowhaniuk’s danger to his girlfriend, and repetitive previous crimes. The court sided with the state and released the Second Modification Order explaining that the no hold bail will continue.
The Problem on Appeal
Dowhaniuk failed to appeal the First Modification Order within his allotted 30 days. On the contrary, he did meet the deadline to appeal the second order. While this appeal was being processed, he asked the court to accept an appeal for the first order he missed the window on. He claimed that he was uniformed about his right to appeal, so the court accepted this appeal in addition. Dowhaniuk’s two appeals were combined into this decision by the Utah Appeals Court.
Dowhaniuk filed complaints about both of the Modification Orders mentioned above. He raised both procedural and substantive concerns surrounding the first order. On the procedural side, he claimed that the court violated due process since he was not given an opportunity to speak on his own behalf. The court reviewed the law and determined that this was enough to vacate the first order. The argument on the substantive side focused on there being no change of circumstances to warrant a new order. This argument was not taken into consideration, as the procedural evidence was sufficient alone.
Because the Second Modification Order only solidified the first order, the arguments against it were not taken into account. Dowhaniuk had the same goal in appealing both of the orders, so the discussion over the second was rendered moot.
Appeal Decision
The court took Dowhaniuk’s appeal into consideration, and his original order of home confinement was reinstated. The modification orders were determined to have prejudiced Dowhaniuk, and the case has passed to the District Court for future proceedings. Due to Dowhaniuk’s lack of opportunity to respond to the First Modification Order, his appeal has been granted. Dowhaniuk will now be able to await trial under house arrest, in accordance with the original legal plan.
Why This Case Matters
Despite the nature of the charge a defendant is facing, proper procedure must always be followed in all legal proceedings. In Dowhaniuk’s case, the Appeals Court’s decision reinforces that shortcuts in modifying conditions of release can result in constitutional violations of a defendant’s rights.
This decision also demonstrates the importance of a defendant being informed of their rights at all stages of court proceedings. By accepting Dowhaniuk’s late appeal, the court acknowledged that access to a fair trial includes providing the defendant with accurate and timely legal knowledge.
Key Takeaways
- Due process applies to pre-trial proceedings, including bail modifications: Courts are required to give defendants the opportunity to speak on their own behalf before changing release terms.
- Procedural mistakes may supersede state’s arguments: Despite the state providing strong evidence in favor of custody, procedural violations rendered the modification orders null and void.
- A defendant being informed of their rights takes high priority in legal proceedings: Since Dowhaniuk was not informed of his appeal rights, the court accepted his late appeal decision.