Chapter 15

Idaho § 15:1 § 15:2

§ 15:3 § 15:4 § 15:5

§ 15:6 § 15:7 § 15:8 § 15:9 § 15:10 § 15:11 § 15:12 § 15:13 § 15:14 § 15:15 § 15:16 § 15:17 § 15:18 § 15:19 § 15:20 § 15:21 § 15:22 § 15:23 § 15:24 § 15:25 § 15:26 § 15:27 § 15:28 § 15:29 § 15:30 § 15:31 § 15:32 § 15:33 § 15:34 § 15:35 § 15:36

Summary of postconviction remedies in Idaho Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under Idaho

Code§§ 19-4901to19-4911 -Text of § 19-4901 --Case law . ·. -Grounds for relief-Newly discovered evidence-

Case law · -Text of § 19-4902 - -Filing, Petition --Case law -Summary dismissal-Case law -Statute of limitations --Case law - -Death sentence cases ---Case law '. -Text of§ 19-4903 · -Text of § 19-4904 -Right to counsel-Case law - -Idaho Criminal Rules, Rule 44.2 - - -Text of Idaho Criminal Rules, Rule 44.2 ---Case law · /

-Text of§ 19-4905 -Text of § 19-4906 -§ 19-4906-Case law -Text of § 19-4907 -Discovery-Case law -Text of § 19-4908 --Case law -Text of§ 19-4909 ~Text of§ 19-4910 -Text of § 19-4911 -Death s~ntences : · -Custody .requirement -Independent civil action -Appeals --! -Case law ' -Death sentences-Idaho Code § 19-2719 ---Text .

' ' ,,:

1

STATE PosrooNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 15:37 ---Case law § 15:38 Writ of habeas corpus under Idaho Code §§ 19-4201 to

19-4226 § 15:39 -Provisions (

§ 15:40 -Filing § 15:41 -Civil actions § 15:42 -Discovery § 15:43 -Relief. § 15:44 -Appeals § 15:45 -Text of§ 19~4201. "; § 15:46 -Text of§ 19-4201A .. § 15:47 -Text of§ 19-4202 .. § 15:48_ ~Text of § 19-4203 -· § 15:49 -Text of§ 19-4204 § 15:50 -Text of§ 19-4205 § 15:51 -Text of § 19-4206 '•.

§ 15:52 -Text of § 19-4207 § 15:53 -Text of§ 19-4208 § 15:54 -Text of§ 19-4209 · § 15:55 -Text of§ 19-4210 § 15:56 -Text of§ 19-4211 § 15:5~ -Text of§ 19-4212 ;

§ 15:58. -Text of § 19.-4213 ..

I ··'

§ 15:59 -Text of§ 19-4214 ·.:t .

§ 15:60 -Text of§ 19-4215 § 15:61 -Text of§ 19-421Q ··.l

I '

§ 15:62 -Text of§ 19-4217 •' rl

§ 15:63 -Text· of·§ 19-4218 · § 15:64 -Text of§ 19-4219 § 15:65 -Text of § 19-4220 .. . '

t_•.

§ 15:66 -Text of § 19-4221 § 15:67. -Text of § 19-4222 § 15:68 -Text of § 19-4223 J.: •••

§ 15:69 -Text of§ 19-4224 § 15:70 -Text of§ 19-4225 ·,.l'· . . - ·. ~ , ..

§ 15:71 -Text of § 19-4226 § 15:72 -History -· \" ...... ;

§ 15:73 -Use of habeas corpus to raise .clanns unrelated. to· ~ . i l

conviction or sentence-Case law'. · ' '· · ·. -§ 15:74 Motions to correct illegal sentence, correct-seµterice

imposed in an illegal manner and reduce sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 85 ·

§ 15:75 -Text ... ·i•

§ 15:76 -Case law regarding correction of illegal sentences · and sentences imposed, .in an. illegal maµner

§ 15:77 ;_Case law regarding motion to reduce sentence ~- •.

2

IDAHO § 16:1

§ 15:78

§ 15:79 § 15:80

§ 15:81

Motions to correct clerical error under Idaho Rule: o(. ,Criminal·~ocedl;ll'e.36 . . " : .

. ~Case.law , . ·i· _ . .

Writ of error coram nobis under. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) .. . · ·

-Text .': .;;.. ' ... § ·15:82 -Case law § 15:83 Postconviction DNA te~~g s~tu~. unper Idaho Code

§§ 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b)-(f) § 15:84 Postconviction DNA testing. statUte under Idaho Code

§§ 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(bµ(g)-Text:of ' . , § 19-4901(a)(6) 'I :' ,'

,§ 15.:85_· .. r·'~Q~tco~victic;>!l PNAt~s~g statµte under Idaho Cod~ §§ 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b)-(f)-Text of § 19-4902(b)-(f)

§ 115:86 . , ?os~e>nYi:~tion D~A.tes~g s~~~te UD:der Idaho Code §§ 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b)-(g)-Text of § 19-2719

§ 15:87 Erron1eous Convictions Act · ·.

: · .

K~~Cite®:.Cases _and other 'legal ~at.erials iist~d in KeyCite. Scope can .l?e researched tlirotigh tiie 1KeyCite ·serviee on'Westlaw~. Use KeyCite to check citations for form,, paralle.l refe~eµ~s,;prior and later.history, anq e<>mprehen-1 sive citator information, including citations to other decisions and, secondary materials.· · · '· · · · · · · · · · · ·

., . l ...

§ ~5;1:: '., s~~ 'o~ ;PQ~t~on~ction. r~~e~~s 'in Jd~o ,,·. . . I

,J?:~hiciparl)!~~tc~n~~~iqn.;re.~e.dy: · " '.. , ".· ; .. ;, :, .. ·. · · · . · 1

• '. , •

· UPCPA 'cl966 ·version\ ·This ·r~~edy is applied for in the convicting coq;rt .. The ldah9 JJPCPA .:re~edy .is: aµ· indepenclent

'Civil action, not a posts~.µ.t~n~ing: phase· of th_~ Qri~nal --criminal case. The reniedy is a~thorized by statute. There is no custody re·quiremeri.t under the remedy: 'Newly discovered.'eViderice ic)f-in-nocerice: is a· grounq for 'relief under the remedy. . ' : ·: ;i ~ ' i':

' • I: ; , , ; l , 1 , # ! • •" \ ' ! • • • • ' , I j ! : I >

Right to_,counsel: ... : . -. 1'.,:,·· ·1· .• : •.

. In death-.seritence, cases~ there is a right.-to couns'el in-Idaho UPCPA p'tdceedings.· .Jn non:oapitalt'cases:, there :is "no right· to counsefin·ldano UPCPAptbceedihgs. ·· , ~

.· : : : . ~' 1 :,· ; . ' ••• ': • ·,:: . • ; • : \

Statl,l~e :f?f limita~io~;. 1 •. - - • , , . • • • • •

' · If the person ·seeking relief under the Idaho UPCPA is· undert ,a death sentence, the application for relief must be. filed"within~ 42 d~ya,_ aft~r the filing. -by the:;~o~v.ictizig !COl,\rt o~;tl;le· rjud~~nt ~po~~ng the .de~~h. pei;ialty. In .a. non,capita.l case t;b.e. ~pplicatiQIJ.

3.

§ 15:1 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

for relief under the Idaho UPCPA must be filed withiq. one year from the expiration of the time for'appeal, or.from the' determina­tion of the appeal, or from the determination of a· proceeding fol­lowing appeal, whichever is later.

Secondary postconviction remedies: Habeas corpus Motion to correct illegal sep.te,nce . . . Motion to correct sentence impqsed in. an. illegal manner Motion to redµce sentence Motion to correct clerical error Writ of error coram nobis (under Rule 60(b), Idaho R. Civ. Proc.)

' . " .

Other remedies: Idaho has a postconviction DNA testing s~atU;te, enacted in

2001. . . . .

Idaho does not have an errone.ous conviction~ ~~t~. . · . :

Helpful readings: (1) Collier, Habeas Corpus in Idaho, 4 Idaho L. Rev. 45 (1967) (2) Anderson, Coram Nobis, 4 Idaho L. Rev. 89.-(1967). (3) Comment: The New Idaho Death Penalty Statute: Will It

Reduce Appeals?, 33 Idaho L~ Rev. 259, 281-83 (1996) ( 4) Fisher, Expedited Review of Capital Post-Conviction Claims:

Idaho's Flawed Pr()cess, 2 J. App. Prac. & Process 85 (2000) (5) Comment and Ca$enote, EVahs v~ Michigan and the Abroga­

tion of State v. Korsen: A Look ... at. ~he Effect on Habea~ Corpu~ Claims for Collateral Relief in ld~o, 51 Idaho L. Rev:. 487 (2915)

.: ' ,·

§ 15:2 Uniform .Post-Conviction Procedure Act under ·· Idaho· Code §§ 19-4901, to 19-4911

'. . ··1· ..

. ;Tp.e.1966 versiop. of the ·uniform Pqst-.Col}viction Procedur.~ Act became Idaho's principal postc~nviction rem~dy when it wa~ originally enacted into law by the Idaho legislature in 1967. Act of Feb. 18, 1967, ch. 25, 1967 Idaho Sess. Laws.42. The·UPCPA, as. amended nine times. and remains the principal postconviction remep.y in:ldaho, and is '.codified. in· Chapter 49 ,(~'Uniform Post­Conviction Procedure Act") of. Title 19 ("Criminal Procedure'~) .of the Idaho Code (Idaho Code § 19-4901 through.§ 19-4911). ldah~'s postconviction DNA testing statute, enacted· in · 2001, is codified in part within the state's UPCPA, at Idaho ·Code § 19-490l(a)(6) and § · 19.:4902(b) to (f). : . · · · · · · · The availability of relief under Idaho's 'UPCPA is governed, not

only by .the provisions of the UPCPA itself; bu'.t also by (1) Idaho

4

IDAHO § 15:3

Code § 19-2719; (2) Idaho Code . § 19-853(b); (3) Rule 44.2, Idaho Crim. R.; ( 4) Rule 44.3, Idaho Crim. R.; and (5) Rule 57, Idaho Crim. R. · .

Rule 57, Idaho Crim. R., is entitled "Uniform ·Pdst-Conviction Procedure Act." Rule 57 was "adopted on Dec~ 27, 1979, and became effective on July 1, 1980. Rule 57(a) sets forth· a ·model form of' application for postconviction relief under th~ Idaho UPCPA and requires' tha~ U;PCPA ~pplications be· substantially in accordance with the model ~Qrm. Rul·~ 57(b) provides: "The pe­tition for postconviction relief shall be filed. by ~hf! clerk of the court as. a separate civil· case and be processed µ~der ~he. Idaho R~le~ of Civil Procedure except as otherwise o:r;~ered by the trial court; provided the. provisions >for discovery in the. Idaho ·;Rules. of Civil :procedure shall, not apply tp th~ proce~~ngs unless and only t.o the extent ordered by the trial court." Rule 57(c).provides: "The petitioner shall· hav~. the burden of proving the petitioner's grounds for relief by a preponderance. of the evidence."

§ 15:3 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under .Idaho Code §§·19-4901:to 19-4911-Text of§ 19-4901

Idaho's Ui?CPA, Idaho Code§§ l9-4~01 et seq., provides: 19-4901. Remedy-To whQm available-Conditions.

(a) Any person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime .and who claims: · .

(1°) That.the conviction or.the sentence was in violation of the constitution of the· United States or 'the constitutio.n .or laws of t~s state; ·

(2) That the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence;

(3) ·That the sentence exceeds the maximum authorized by law; ·: '.·· · , · ·

(4):That there exists eviden~e of ma~erial facts, no~ previ~ · ously presented and heard, that requires vacation of the

. co~victiOn or sentence ih t~e interest of justice; . ' (5) That his sente11;ce has expir~~' h~s probation, or

conditiol\al rel_ea~e, was unlawfully revo~ed by tP,~ c'ourt j~ . which he was convicted, or that he is otherwise, unlawfully held .in custOdy <?r other restraint; · ' · .. ·. . · - ·~ . ; '

(6) Subject to the :provisions of section 19-4902(b) .. through (g), Idaho Code, that the petitioner is innocent of 'the. offense; or · · (7) That the conviction ·or. sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground of alleged error heretofore

5

§ 15:3 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

available under any common law, statutory'·or other writ, ·motion, petition, .proceeding,: or .remedy: may institute, without paying a filing fee, a proceeding under this: act. to secure relief. - . ... . "1: , .· , I . , ·. . .

. . (b) :-~~ .~emec!y is ·not ~ ~ubst~tute for nor does. it aff~pt any remedy .~cident to, the proceedings in . the trial court, or of an appe&, .'froin the s~ntence ~r -~onviction. AnY. issue O\y;hich could have .. been rEii~ed on dir~ct' appeal, buJ was ·n9t, i~ forfeite~· and )iiay ·no~ b~- .~onsidered ll,i ·.post-convictfon P,roceedings,' unless it

. appear,s ,to the court,. on .the basis. of~ ·substantial factual show,;, fog by affidavit, ·~~posit.ion qr. otherwise, that the asserted basis for· r~lief: r~s~s' a · subst$.tihl ·d~ul;>t about the . reliability· of th~ finclilig of gµilt and could not, iri -the exercise of due diligence,

· have' been presented earlier. E~ce~t as otherwise' prov~d~d ·in ~ this· act,· 'it: ~onw~ehends. and t~es the place, of 'all other com­mon law; ·statutory, or ·oth~r reine~es · h~retofore available for \challenging ·the ·validity of the· conviction or. sent'encei~.: It sh8:11 be used exclusively in' place -of thein.· • · · · · · -.

§ 15:4 ··uniform· Post-Conviction .Procedure Act .under Idaho Code §§ 19~4901 to 19-4911~Text of § · 19~490l~ase. law · ._, .. · · · · ·,,

For:_ ~a~~-1.aw ·~n- Idahp Qod~. §)9-~901, ·se.e e~~~~'. ~~~-~~s~n· v. State; 159 Idaho 517, ·ass P.3d 358 (2015) (pe~1t1on fQf ·post­conviction relief is a civil proceeding, governed by' the I4aho Rules of Civil Procedure; although Idaho·· Rule of Civil PrQcedure 8(a)(l) reqUires .'a pleader to set forth ··a. short and plain. s'fattenient; of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief, to . surVive' sum­mary dismissal,: an application for ·post-conviction relief must contain much more; application must be supported by a state­ment th~t specifiA~lly ~ets fprth ~he grounds upon.wµich: the ap­plication is based and the application must present 0~1 be ac­compani,ed. by. a®Uesi9~e · evi~~,1we s:upporting. its ~llegati9ns, or the applic~~jpn ·wnr Qe ·subject.· to dis~i~sal); fi~l~s. v. S.t~te, 155 Idaho 532~ · 3t4 · P .ad 587·(2018) (Uµiform Post-Conv:iction, J>roce­dure Act (UPCPA) generally' gov~ms 'post-conviction· ptoceedings; for post.:.cortviction· procedureJn ~apiial cases, however,. the stat­#te .ereatmg specihl. appel~ate ·an~ post-conviction· proci:1dure for capital ;cases governs to· the eitent that the 1statute. conflicts with the UPCPA); Warren v. Craven; 152 Idaho 327, 27t··P.Sd 725 (Ct. App. 2012) (petition· ,for a writ of, habeas corpus. may ·be: used to

. challenge· :the conditions· of ·a ·.person's confinement, :but not for contesting a conviction; nonetheless, as the Uniform Post­Gonviction., P.rocedure Act is, construed· as an expansion of the writ of.babe.as ·corp.us; ·and .. substance. governs· over Jor.m, a

6

I IDAHO § 15:6

propevly ·raised issue may .be considered' without requiring a sep­arate p~stc.onv~p_tion petition t9 be ~l~q); Lamm v. State, 143 Idaho 763, 152 P.3d 634 (Ct. App. 200~) (a .pe~iti01;1er ii;i a post­conviction relief_ 1,>roceedi~g may mov~ to disqualify a judge for cause). • ; '. , • ' . . ! I - ' ' •

1 . .' ! ' I ·

~ : . .I I

§ 'i5:5 ·Uniform Post~Conviction '.Procedl:tre Act under Idaho Code§§ 19-4901to19-4911-GroWids·for ·

: ·relief..:.;..NewJy discoV'.~re~ eVidence-Case·law •I f •' ~!~ ',· _;,\ .! ,-, ,:.- ,,,- •,- \ ,·_: ' j ')\' ~- ··~ ' ~ •!

:Newly: 4iscq:vered: e~de~ce of innw~~~c~ is· a ~9bnd. for relief under thel Idaho UPCPA. .. ldaho;.Code] f9-490l(a}(4); BiVak v. State~ 134. Idaho-'64i~· s· P~3d 636 (2oOo)"(under·tl1e ·u:Pe,PA, relief is':availa.ble on basis' of iilateria:l tacts, riot preViously pr~seht!3~); Whiteley v. State, 131 Idaho 323, 955 P.2d 1102 (1998) (request for: a 'new ti:ial· in' a- postconviction ··.proceeding based on newly discovered evidence is -thEf ·same as "a, motion for new trial stibsequ·ent· to a jurjr~ verdict).- ' 1

: • • • .. ,

§ 1.5:6 .. Uniform: Post•Convlction Procedure Aet under Idaho Co·de §§_.194901 ·to 19~491i~Text of§ 19-4902

: 194902.; Commencement ,(>f ;proceedings--Verifica~· ; .; tion~Filing~Servic~DNA testing. ·· · 2, , 1;. ~

,'. i (a),A_'proceeding is 1 commenced. by filing ai1 applicatiOn'Veri­fied by the applicant With the.clerk·of the· district court in which

. the.conviction. took·place .. An'.application,may be filed at any · time within one (1) year.from the·expiration of the' time· for ap­,. peal 'or from the determination of an appeal or~from~ the deter­

.' . mination of a proceeding following an appea1, .. whicheve·r is later .. Facts within the persoµal:lm~wledge :Of the applicant .and the .authentioity1 of.all documents· ·and,exhibits included .in' or

. , attached to •the· applica:tion must be s~orn.to ,affirmatively as '.i:true:and correct. The. supreme court may prescribe the.form of ·, the~application .~nd .verification .. The ~lerk shall· docket the ap-. :plication upon its receipt and promptlyjbringjt to ;the attention

, . of, the. court ~nddeliver a copy to. the ·prosecuting attorney.. : (b), A_ petitioner :may, ,at: any time;::file-8.1 pet~tion before the

trial. court· .that entered the judgment of .conviction in .his or her case for the performance '.of fingerprint( 1or forensic deoxyribo­

. ·nucleic· acid (DNA) testing ·on evidence that was secut.ed. in. re­

. lation to the trial which resulted in.his or her conviction but .which was n·ot1-subject-<to the testing that.is now requested because the technology for the 'testing was not available at the time· of trial. The· clerk sh.all' docket,the application upon'its receipt ·and. promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver a copy to the prosecuting attorney.

7

§ 15:6 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(c) The petitioner must· present a prima facie case that: (1) Identity was an issue in the trial which resulted in his

·or her conviction; and · · · · · · . · (2) The evidence' to be· ~sted has bee~ subject to a chaiµ of

custody sufficient to establish that such evidence has riot been substituted, tampered with, repla('.ed or. al_tered in any material aspect. · , . . . , · · · (d) A petitioner .. wlw. pleaded guilty in th~- underlying case

may file a petition under subsection (b) of this section. (e) The 'tria~ court shall allow tlie testing uncJer reason.able

. conditions designed to protec~ the state's 1nt~~ests in the integ­rity of t;he evidence and the testing process upon a 4etermina-tion tliat: · · · · ·

.• ' ..

· (l) The result of the testing has .th~ sci~ntific. potential to produce. new, noncumulative evidence that would show that it is more probable tha~ not that th~ _petitioner is innQcent; and

(2) . The testing method requested would likely ·produce admissible results under the Idaho~ rules of evidence. (fj In the event the fingel]lrint .or forensic DNA test· results

demonstrate, in light of all admissible 1evidence, that the petitioner is .no.t th~ person who committed the -offens~, the court. shall order the appropriate relief. . · (g) ·The cost of the forensic DNA test shall· be ·at the petitioner's~expense, except to the-extent the petitioner quali­fies for: the test at public expense pursuant to chapter· 8, · title

'19,. Idaho-Coae,-in which case the-fingerprint or forensic·DNA · test shail ·be performed by; and ·paid for by funds allocated for,

Idaho state police forensic services, :provided the requested method of testing· or specific technology is validated by the lab, within the laboratory accreditation scope, and laboratory staff

. are qualified. and· satisfactorily performing proficiency· testing in the testing method~ If. the laboratory does not offer the specific tyPe of testing· required, the Idaho state police shall· not

. be required to, outsource the testing .or in any way pay for or reimburse any. entity for the' testing to be performed. For the

: purposes of·this subsection, "validated" me·ans the accumula­tion: of test data within the laboratory to demonstrate that established:methods and procedures.perform as expected in the laboratory. The petitioner may-choose an ISO/IEC 17025 or an American society of crime laboratory· directors/laboratory ac­creditation board accredited DNA testing laboratory to- perform the· DNA testing. Such testing shall be at the petitioner's expense.

8

IDAHO §.15:8

§ 15:7 . tf niform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under I~aho·.Code §§ 19-4901 to 19-4911--Text of § 19-4902-Filing, Petition

A proceeding under the Idaho UPCP ~ "is· commenced by filing an applic~tion verified by th~ applicant with the clerk· of the 4istr,ict _court in which ~he .. CO!f Viction tpo:It place." ldaho Cqde § 19-4902(a). The Idaho Sup:reme· Cqurt' may pre~.crib~ the form of'applicat~op. for UPCPA relief. ~aho Code § 19-4902(a) .. The. prescribed model form is coµtained in Rwe 57(a), Idaho Crim. R., which also . requires that an application for relief under the UPCPA qe substantially similar to the model form. The .~equired ~ontents of the application .are prescrib~d by. Idaho Code § 19-:-4903. All grounds for relief availabl~! to the applicant· must be raised in the original, amended, or. supplemental .application. Idaho Code § 19-4908. ·

§ 15:8 Uniform. Post-Conviction Procedure Act· .Un.der: 1'1aho Code §§ 19-4901 to,19ii4911~Text of .. , § 19-4902--Case law 1.<'

For case law. on filing and the petition under § 19-4902,. see e.g., State v. Shackelford; 150 Idaho 355, 247 P.3d 582 (2010) (an application for postconviction relief under: the Uniform Post­Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA) is· civil'. in nature; applicant for postconviction, relief must ·prove by a preponderance of .~vi­dence the ·allegations upon which the application for postconVic'." tion relief is based; unlike the complaint in an ordinary civil ac­tion, however, an application for. pOstconviction relief must contain more than "a short. and plain statement of the claim" that would suffice for a complaint under I.R.C.P. 8(a)(l);· rather, an application· for postconviction relief must be verified with· re;. spect to facts within the personal knowledge· of the applicant; the application must present" or be accompanied by admissible evi­dence supporting its allegations, or the application Will be subject to dismissal); Martinez ·v. State,: 143 Idaho 789, 152 P.3d 1237 (Ct. App. 2007) (a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may properly be brought under the Idaho UPCPA; .like a plaintiff in 1 a civil actiqn, the applicant must prove by a preponderance o'( evi­dence the allegations upon which, the request for postconviction relief is based; an application for·postconviction relief differs from a compl~int in an ordinary civil action; an application must contain much more than "a short and plain ·statement of the claim~'- that would suffice for a complaint under Rule 8(a)(l), Idaho R.· Civ. Proc.; rather, an application for· postconviction 1relief must be verified with respect to facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant, and affidavits, records or other .evidence support-

9

§ 16:8 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

ing its· allegations must be attached, or the application .. niust state why such supporting evidence is ·not~.inelu:ded~ With the ap­plication; in other words, the· applieation must:.present or be ac­compani~d by a~ssible ~vidence suppQrt\ng its .alleg~tions, or the appli_~ation 1Will·be·subject t9. dismis$al; summary dismissal of

. an . application' for ·po~~~onVict~on reli.e~ may be . ~pproprl:at~. evep. wh,ere . ~he ,sta~e ~oes. not contr_9v~rt: the applicant's . ev1de~ce beca'.us~ t~e court is110~ required~~. accept ~ither the applicant's mere conclusory allegations;' \lnsupported liy admissible eVidehce~ or tne· appUcant's con.clusiotis 'of law); Baker;·v: State, ·t,42.Idaho 411, 128 P.~3d 948 (Ct~ App·.~.2005) (alleg~tion ·that a claim was not adequately presented in a first postconviction' action due to the ineffective assistance of prior postconvictiOn coUn.sel, if true, provides; sufficient reason .. · for permitting issues that were inadequately;presented· to be· presented· in a. sub'sequent: applica• tion for postconviction relief). · '

§ · 15:9. ··Uniform._, Post-Conviction ·Procedure Act under · · · Idaho .Ccl'de §§ 19-4901 to: l9-4911~Su:inmary dismissal-Case law ·' . ; . -.,, .. ·

.For :case law on: .summary.dismissal .of Idaho, UPCPA petitions, see e.g., -Severson v~ State; 159 Jdaho·517, 363 P.3d~358 (2015) (an ineffective : assistance ·of counsel . claim . in a •petition; for post­conviction relief wim survive a' motion for summary ·dismissal only if the petitioner establishes.both that·a material.issue of fact e:Xists as :t9 whether• counsel's performance was .deficient and that a materi~l .issue 1 of. fact exi.sts as. to·· whether .that· deficiency prejudiced the. petitioner~s case; petitioner establishes,·deficient perfo:nmance .. by. showing that the. attorney's representation' fell befow. an· objective·· standard of reasonableness; petitioner establishes>:prejudice by showing a reasonable probability that the result. :o.f the: proceeding would have. been. different but. for counseUs unprofessional·· errors); ·Kelly'v. State,. 149 Idaho 517, 236·:P.3d :1277 "(2010). (an applicant. for ·postconviction relie£·may assert, :·for the first time ·on appeal, that the· State's, ,motion for s.ummary· disposition· and accompanYing memoranda failed. to proride· .the, applicant with any.·notice of the grounds· for sum­mary dismissal); Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671, !227 P.3d 925 (2010) (§.19~4906 authorizes sllIIllilary dismissal of a:n application for postcoriviction relief, ·either _pursuant to motion' of a par,ty or upon the, trial court's own initiative; summary. dismissal.of an ap­plication is the pl'ocedural equivalent of summary judgment under I.R.C.P .. 56; if the petitioner's alleged facts are. uncontro­verted by the.State ...... [they] must be regarded,as true;· however, summary dismissal may be appropriate. even where the State does :not controvert the. applicant's evidence ,because .the court is

10

IDAHO ;' §.16:9

not required to accept either the applicant's:inere·conclusory al­legations, unsupported by admissible. evidence, or the applicant's conclusions of law; where .the -evidentiary;'.facts are ·not disputed and the trial court rather; than a !jury .will. be the trier. of f~ct, summary·jU:dgment; is appnopriate, .despite the possibility of coilflicting, inferehces. because . the· court ,alone will. be resj>0nsible (or resolving the .confilct·between those·-inferences;; when. an ac~ tion is to be tried· before. the ,court ;~thout a jtµy, the·~udge isinot constrained: tor draw inferences· Jin. favor· of the~.party.. bpposi:ngJa motion for sumni.ary judgment·, but rather·:the trial judge· is free to "~rrive at the ·most: ·probable -inferences' to be. drawn from uncontroverted evidentiary factS); ·McKay v. Btate~) 148 Idah6 ·567, 225 P.3d 700 (2010),(~egatiolis contained°iiJ'.i!an~application for postconvict~Qn relief are. insufficient~r.for,·purposes .of summary dismissal, when they·are clearly.:.disp:roved by;_ the.record of the original proceedings, or do notJusti.fy.~elief:as:.a matter oflaw;.If the .record: conclusively:.disproves, an· essenmafoe~emeht·.:of '.a post­conviction claiin, summary; dismissal .of; the :application '.for post­conviction relief is, appropriate);· State·;v. -.P.ayne:, 1 il.~6 Idaho :548, 199 P.3d 123 (2008). (wher.e.the evidentiary. facts .are not: disputed -and the trial court·rather•tha:n.a:jurywill:be the .trier of fact, summary judgment is appropriate, despite the :possibility.· of con:fiicting inferences because ;the co.urt· alone will be responsible for resolving.-the confilct'·bet~een those inferences; when an:ac­tion is, to be tried b.eforeithe·court without a jury, the judge is. not constrained to: draw. inferences: ih favor of the party opposing a motion for stimmaryi judgment but: rather . the. trial judge . is. free to arrive at the most.probable inferences to be drawn·. from wicoiltrovert~d :eviqentiary facts);~ Franck-Teel v. State, 143 Idaho 664,, 152 P~Sd 25 (Ct .. App. 2006)'.(failure of triali court· to· pl!ovide ·postconviction-.relief applic~nt. with suffi.cient notice 'of intent to summarily dismiss, application .and .basis: ,for: suµunary dismissal in, circumstance.jn.which state,fails. ~to file .and serve properly supported motion: for. summary dismissal ordinarily requires .that an order· ·summarily dismi·ssing an ·application for. postconviction relief be . .reversed;. even .where an: application for. postconviction relief is without Ill&rit);.Ande,rson ,v. State, 2007 WL.3227294 (Idaho· Ot. App. 2007): (if .thei .applicant~s ·evidence; has. raised no genuine issue of material fact which, ifiresolved ll;l the applicant's favor, -would entitle,.him'to the. requested relief, the· trial court may summarily dismiss .al :petition for posteonviction ·relief, either upon mot~on ofa. party or. on:_the court's own initiati~e); Newman t1: .State, 140. Idaho 491, 95 .P.3d 642 (Ct. App~12004) (~n order for summary; disp_asition of: a• po13tconviction relief. application: under Idaho Code § 19-4906(c) is. the- procedural equivalent 'of summary judgment ·µnder.Rule .56, Idahoc.R .. ;Civ., Proc.; therefore, summary

11

§ 15:9 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

dismissal of a postconviction application is appropriate only if there exists no genuine· issue :of material fact which, if resolved in the applicant's favor, would· entitle him to the· requested relief; if a genuine issue is presented, an evidentiary hearing must .be conducted; Sparks v. State, 140 Idaho 292,. 92 P.3d 542 (Ct. App. 2004) (ineffective counsel claim; an application for postconviction relief initiates a proceeding· which is civil in nature; summary dismissal· Qf an .application pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-4906 is the procedural equivalent of summary 'Judgment under Rule 56, Idaho R .. Civ.:Proc.; like a plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of e~dence the allegations upon which.the request 'for ppstconviction. relief is based); Sayas v. State; 139 ·Idaho 957~ 88· P.3d 776 '(Ct. App.i ·2003) (Idaho Code § .19.-4906 authorizes summary disposition of an application for postconviction relief,1 either pursuant to a motion· of a party or upon the court's own initiative; suµunary dismissal is permissible only when·the applicant~ evidence has.raised no· genuine issue of material fact·which, ifresolved·inthe ·applicant's favor, would entitle the applicant to the. requested relief; if such a factual is­sue is presented, an evidentiary ·hearing must be conducted; sum-

. mary dismissal of an ~application for postconviction relief may be appropriate,· however, even where.the. ·state· does :not controvert the app,licant's · evidence·. because the. court is not· required to ac­cept the applicant's .mere conclusory allegations. unsupported by admissible evidence or the applicant's conclusions of law; nothing in the· UPCPA requires the ·petitioner to ·obtain the records from his underlying criminal case as a prerequisite .to filing a petition; in some contexts, a letter to a trial court· from· a defendant. ·can be treated,,·as some type of motion or application- for' postconviction relief; :Idaho Code § 19-4902(a) requires that a postconviction proceeding-be commenced by filing a petition.anytime within one year from the expiration of the time for appeal or from the deter­mination of an appeal or 'from the determination of proceedings following an appeal, whichever is later; failure to. file. a timely. pe­tition for postconviction relief is a basis for dismissal of the peti­tion; Meza Sayas did not appeal the entry of judgment, and so had one year and 42 days in which to· file: a petition for postcon­viction relief;. the failure to .file a timely petition is a. basis far dis­missal ·of the petition; however, the time :limitation may· be enlarged if the defendant has been effectively denied access to the. courts; in Idaho, equitable tolling of· the statute of limitations for filing a postconviction relief p~tition ·has been .recognized: (1) where the 'petitioner was incarcerated in an out-of-state facility on an in-state conviction without legal representation or. access to Idaho legal materials; (2} and where mental· disease and/or psychotropic· medication renders· a petitioner incompetent· and

12

IDAHO § 15:11

prevents petitioner from earlier pursuing. challenges to his conviction).

§ 15:10 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under Idaho Code §§ 19-4901 to 19-4911-Statute of limitations · ·

· As originally enacted in 1967, the Idaho UPCPA contained no time limits on filing applications for relief .. Currently, Idaho Code § · 19-4902(a); the statute of-limitations on filing an· application for relief under the Idaho, UPCPA, proyides a one year limitations period: The statute of limitations begins to run.from the. expira­tion of the time for· appeal, or from the determination of an ap":' peal, or· from the determination. of a proceeding· .following. appeal, whichever is later. ldaho·Code § 19-4902.(a).:

•• • 1, • •• • •• '

§, 15:11 .: U11iform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under !

. ldftho Code §§ 19.-4901 to 19-4911-Statute -of Iimitations~ase iaw . · · · ·

I •/,.I· -'' ' •,.

For case law involving the one-year limitation on applying for Idaho UPCPA relief.see, e.g., Marlinez v. Klauser, 266.F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2001) (Idaho Court :Of Appeals cited-:_no prior Idaho case law sup.porting its holding in Martinez v. State, 130 Idaho 530, 944 P.2d 127. (Ct. App. 1997), that.Idaho Code:§.19-4906(b) al­lows the trial court to raise a:· statute of lin)itations defense. that the state had not asserted in.its·answer; ~he State -of Idaho b,as not cited. to us any other case-de.cided either .before or· after Martinez's .. case-that reads the. statute in this way; based on the briefs of the parties and on our owµ.. research, w~ beli~ve that Martinez's case, is the only Idaho case so holdi~g; subsequent Idaho case. law appears tO cc;mtradict the Idaho Court of A,ppe.als' holding .in Martin,ez's case; we. have serious doubt about whether the Idaho trial court was I authorized to 'dis.miss 'Martinez's peti­tion based on the· statute of limitations after the ·state· failed tO assert that defe'nse in· its answer; whetner the 'trial ·court had authority fo' acf as it did is "n9t, however~ the precise "question b~fore· us; .·rather, we must ·decide whether the rule pursuant to which. the·Jdaho trial court disniissed Martinez's petition··ls· suf­fici"ent basis for finding a procedural default" that bars h.abea~ corpus. relief in federal cotirt, ·and.we hold it is not); Kirkland v. State, 143 ·Idaho 544, 149 P~3d 819 (2006) (abrogated on other grounds by, Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, 15l':Jdaho 889, 265 P.3d 502 '(2011)) (Idaho Code § 19-4902 provides· tha.t "[a]n application may be filed at any time within one (1) year from the expiration of the time for appeal or from the determination of an appeal or from the determination of a

13

§ 16:11 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

proceeding following an appeal, ·whichever is later;~· the statute of limitations for petitions for postconviction relief is not· juris'dic• tional; it is an affirmative _defense that may be waived if it is. not pleaded l>y the· defendant;. hnder Idaho Code § l.9-4906(b) a court can dismiss a }>elition on·its own inltiative cased on, untimeliness if there is no material issue of fact; here, the district co,urt erred in. dismis~ing .Kirkland'e, .petitio;o. undei:. §. 19-49,06(b) because there was -an issue of material fact .as: to :the timeliness· of thej .pe~ tition); Evensiosky, v. State, ·186.Jdaho 189, ,30 P.8d ~67 (2001) (there is ·no, discovery exception .to the· one-year·; limitation: on bringing ·a claim for postconviction. review); Cole v .... state; 185 Idaho· 107, :15· P.8d 820 (2000): (applicant's failure to·comply,with the· one-year;linrltatfon· period does· not result·in a jurisdictional defect; the time bar is an affirmative' defense·lhat· may be ·wfilved if it is not pleaded by the state);, Schivart~ v. State, 145 Idaho 186, -l~~ · P .ad· 400 ·1ECt·. App. 200&Y_ (if ~mtial postconviction actibn was timalynfiled and; has coricl#ded, an -'hl.#1ate may file a subsequent application outside 'of-.the one-year-'linlitation period if the col:ltj;: finds. a· ground for relief ass~rted which .for sufficient reason was· not asserted or was. inade_quately raised in the origi~ nal, supplemen~l,. 10r amended application; ineffective assistance of. prior; postconvictioil counsel may· provide sufficient reason . for permitting newly· asserted 'allegations or allegations inadequately raised in ·t~e initial 1application to ·be raised in a' subsequent post­co:q.victi'on application);_ Sayas,v~··state~· 139 Idaho -957,_ ss.· P.3d 77.6 (Ct'. App. ·2008} (Idaho ·code·§' 19;.4902(a) requfres·that a pdstconviction proceeding be commenced by· filing ·a petitiOn ariy tirile within 10he year from the' expiration of the· time for aj>'p~t:ir or from the 'detei'm#1ati,on of an app0'i;il or from the determination pf prqceedings folloWing· _"an ·appeal~ 'Y~~h~ver is later; f~ffl.ire to. fil~ a timely peti~Qn ·for postco:qVictio~ i~lief ~s a> basis (or diSlnissaI of the :peti~icin; '¥.~z~ ·sayas did no~· .app~fil th~ e_ntr§; ,of Judgµi~nt, and' so h~d one· year.and 42 ·d~ys'iµ which to file.~ p~~i~ion for postconvic~~on· relief; the failµte ~~ file a timely petjtioiiJs'. a, p~s~s for .dismj.ss~l, o,f the pe~ition; how~vei:, t;lle .time li~tation ,may.;~~ enl.aiged

1i( the defendant ~as, pe~n effe.ctiye~y· deiµ~d: ~~c~,s~~' ;tfl

t~e cqurts; in Idaho~ equitable, to~g-, o~ the st8:tut~; of J.i~t~~qnf:l for. filing a pos.tconvictionrrelie(peti~io~ has. be~n .r~cognizeFl;,.(;l.~ wh~~ the petitio;ner was incarcera~ed ~~ an; out-o.£:_st~te ;f~\lity . 011: an in~sta~ ·convictJ.011: withQut· legaLrep;resen~a.tjo;n o:r;:acc;El~B-'tQ Idaho :legal materi.als~ and'. (2) where mental 4i~~aS~h a,pQ/or psychotropic medication rend~rs a. ·pe.titioper .incompete.nt_'.anq prevents petitioner from 1.earlier ·pursuing. challenges tQ his conviction). ' < . • , I), C • •. ' I: . ~ .JI r

14

I

I IDAHO ·,. § 16:13

§ 15:12 Uniform Post'!'Conviction Procedure Act under , .Idaho Code §§ .19·490'1 to .19-49ll~tatute.of. ·'.

· . . . · limitations-Death .se~tence cases· .

. ; Wh~r~~s ap_pli~~tions .for UPCP~ reli~f ,in _Id~~.m.ust ~e~er­ally be filed· within one year, there. 1s a DiU:ch ·sh6rter time hnnta­tion ·on filing UPdPA applications iri death sentence cases~ Under Idaho Cod&§ 19•2719,- which"goverruVoiily death ·sentence cases, a· petition, for· postconvictibn relief must: be filed! withiil" 42 'days after. the filing .by .the: convicting· court of the judgment imposing the death ·penalty. \ - ,, · · ·; : · · · '. ... ; ·:" .,

Thus; in· Idaho1 there 'is ·a./42: day· time limit on filing 'UPCPA petitiOris in death~ ·seht~~ce cases,,'· and . a ·.one-year time lim:lt Qn .:filing :IWCPA ·petitjons in ·nQ.nc·apit~ ··cases·. · · 1

• • 1

..:- , :

\ I :' i l ! l: ' .. -_ . : ' i r. ' ••. i: • t .' ! ; -1. c.) :- r-. I _. .... _ "" ' ' . :'; ~' ! ' .•

§ 16:1a: Uniform ~o·s~'Conviction.~ Procediire'Act ·und~r, Idaho Code §§ 19-4901 to 19-4911-Statute ·of · · ~ '. · limitations-Death sentence cases-Case law

: .:_1\ ... :.:; ·:·· ... ,~: . .-~··~.-'::-~ ••. ;· ... ~ ... -_ .. -,;~_ ~-.-=~-.-· .. · •,.:-~ ·:~ ,, !-: ·• ', :. ~ ..

For .. case .. l~~:. ~·Id.~@ Qode_;§)~;-27~1,9,: see..-.~.g.,.Hayes v. State, 143 Idaho 88, 137 P.3d 475 (Ct. App. 2006) (ineffective counsel claim; Hayes asks us to consid_e~ his appeal tµnely even thc;>Ugh his original notice. of appeal wEt~,-he''claim~;~fost'ih the mail and therefore· not physic·a.lly ·received 1bY ~he'. clerk of the district court within '42'·days:·,.after ~th~f dis'trictrcoiiri's dismissal or;der· as required !by Idaho: Appellate Rules· 14(a) 'ai;ld · 20; Idaho App. R.; Hayes is: an inmate-incarce~ated under~ ~1:\S' supervl,sion I of. ,the Idaho Depattment ·of··Correction;' in· support of ·his "lost in the inail" as~ertion, he has prrlVided 'this, cburt With evidence· that he .did in· fact pl~ce· his 'notice· {)f appeal· ib the prison mail system prior tO ·the deadline;: Rttle 14(a), Idaho '.App~ R~, tspeCifles that a notfoe. of ~ppeal mu~t be fil~d· with the; clerk of the district. court within '12 days front: the' dat~ e~denced by the filfrig stamp of the clerk ()f the :c~om;; on any appeala.ble judginen:t, order or decree, a.rid ·under ·Rule: 20~ ·Idaho' App'.· R~, a:.·noti~e.·of appeal is not deeme'd filed ·until it 'is physically received by the clerk of the district court; but Idaho courts have recog·nized-' that· pro se inmates cannot entirely control when their documents are mailed or delivered to the court clerk bec.ause they d() not ·have direct ·ac­cess .to the postal service .. and mu.st ~ely .on prison offiQials· .to. do the actual ma.Hing; our: cour.ts: .therefore follow the mailbox: rule under which.pro St}· inlnates' docuin~.nts are considered to be \filed whe.n they. are.deliv~red to -p~son.~authori.tie~ for, the purpose of mailing ~o the coµrt.-cle:r:lt; .h~!!~, the evide.nc~ suffi~iently demonstrates that.Hayes -timely ~~d his notice,Qf.appeal; a:peti­tio.Jl for postconviction. r,eUef :is .·~.·appropriate mechani$m for considering i clainls ·of ineffective asEJistanc~ .of co.unsel; li~e .a

15

§ 15:13 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant must prove by a prepon­derance of evidence the allegations upon which the request for postconviction relief is based; a· district courtnta.y summarily dismiss a p,Qstconviction petition. if it fails to frame a gem~.ine is­sue of material fact which, if resplved in the petitioner's favor, would entitle the petiti~mer. to the requested·.relief; if sµch a factual issue is presented, an evidentiacy. he~ring mu~t be conducted; summary dismissal of .a petition may be appropriate even where,the state does not controvert.the petitioner's evidence because the court is not required to accept either the petitioner's mere conclµsory allegations, unsµpported by. t:t~ssil;>le evidence, or the peti.tioner's conclusions of Jaw; we reverse the summary dismissal of Hayes's claims of i.neffe~tiye assistance of. counsel based upon Hayes's alleged lack of notice of the possibility of restitution prior to ,pleading guilty. an4 re:iµap.~ .for further proceedings.). . .· , . . . , . .

§ 15:14 Unfr~rm Post~Conviction Proced~eAct. tinder Idaho Code §§ 19-490Fto: 19:.4911-Text of § 19· : 4903 . . . ' : ,, '.. -

· · 19.·4903. · Application~Cont.ents. , . 1

•. ' , , . . • .

Th~ application shall i~en~ify the proceeding~ in whfoh th.e applicant was convicted, give the date of ~e .. ehtcy of the judg­m.ent and sentence complain_ed, of, .specifl:cally .set-.forth the grounds upon, which th~ application, is based, and clearly state .the relief desir~d. F~cts within the. personal knowledge of the

: applicant shall be set fortQ. s~parately from other allegations of facts and shall be :verified as provided in section 19-4902. Af­fidavits, .records, or. other evidence supporting its allegations shall be attached to the application or the appiication $hall re~te why they are not attached. The applicatiQn shaIUdentify all. previous proceedings, together. with the grounds therein as­serted, taken by the. applicant. to secure relief from his convic­tion or sent~nce. Argument, citations, and dis~ussion of authori­ties are unnece~sary.

For case law ·on § 19-4903, see· e.g., Fields v. Btate, 155 Idaho 532, 314 P.3d 587 (2013) (unlike an ordinru-y--suriunary judgment proceeding, much inore than a short and :plain. statement of the claim· is required in a petition for post-conviction .relief; applica­tion for post-conviction relief must present or be accompariied by admissible evidence supporting· its allegatiOns; or· the· application will be subject to. dismissal; appellate ·court reviewing dismissal of a successive· post-conviction petition in a capiti;tl .case. may·not review evidence beyond the petition and its accompanying evi-

16

IDAHO §:15:18

dence to determine whether the petition meets the heightened pleading standard to make a prima facie showing that' the issues raised after the 42 day time period were· riot known or. could not reasonably have been known; ·to support the claims in a post­conviction petition, the eXhibits accompanying. a petition must be admissible evidence); Kelly· v·. State, 149 Idaho· 51.7, 236 P.3d 1277 (2010) (an~ application~ for ·postconviction ·relief under the Uniform Post Conviction. Procedure Act·must· contain more than '~a short and plain• statement of the claim" that would suffice for a complaint under Idaho R. Civ. P. 8(a)(l); rather,. an applicant for· postconviction relief mustc be. verified with i:espect to facts within the personal knowledg~ of the. applicati9n; the application. must include aflidavits, records o~ other evidence suppo~ing its .all:ega­~ions,. or must state why SVi~.h .. suppqrti~g ~vide~c~ ~s. not i~clq.ded); DeRushe v. State, 146 W~o p99,. 200 P~3d 1148 (2009) {the .appli.~ant for postcon~ction ,relief is requir~d to make. a pri:ma f~c.ie case by 'presenting. ~Qmjssible evidence .on each" e.s­sential ·element of his or lier claims); $tate v: fayne, 146 Idaho 548, 199 P.3d 12;3 (2008) (an application' for postconVictjon relief differs .from a 1complaint ih ~il ,prdlnacy7 civil ·action; .the ·applica~ tio~ must cc)ntain niuch more than a short arid' plain statement of the. cla#n that would suffice for a· complaint widerJ.R.C.P. S(a)(l)~ ~pplication must present or· be ~CCOill.panied by admissible. evi­dence supporting its allegations,. or- the. application .will be subject to dislniss~). : · · , . . . ' · · · · . ,

§ 15:15 · .Uniform'. Post~C~nvictio~ Procedure Act' ~der. . Idaho Code'§§ 19:4901to19-4911....:.T.ext of''§ 19-.. 4904 . . . .

. '

19-4904. . Inability to pay costs. If the·applicant is unable to ·pay ·court costs ;and expenses of

representation, including stenographic,- printing, witness fees and expenses,. and legal services, these costs and expenses, and a court-appointed attorney may be made available .. to. the· ap­plicant in the preparation· of the application, ,in the trial court,

• 1and on appeal, and paid, on order· of the district court,; by the · county in which the application is· filed.

* ' ~ • , : • I . ' t . - '

§ 15:16 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under Id~o Code §.§.19-4901to19-4911~Right to· counseI-ca·se law . . . .

The Idaho UPCPA does not guarantee a statutory right to ap­pointed counsel for indigents. Idaho Code §, 19·4904 regulates ap­pointing· counsel for indigents, which·is at the court's discretion ..

For case law on the right to counsel in Idaho UPCPA proceed·

17

§ :t5:16 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEpIEs AND RELIEF

ings,' see,· e.g~, Mur.phy v. :St~te,:.1561 Idaho 389, 327 P.3d_ 365 (2014) (UPCPA ·does!not create a. statutory right to:post-cQnviction counsel ,in, .non<:-Capital. proceedings, nor iiS .the· ineft'ectiv.eness of counsel in a. prior. post-conviction :proceeding. a ground for, relief in a~ subsequen~ post-conviction pr.oceeding, ;ovenuling Palmer v. Dermitt,-.102. Idahof 591, 635 P~2d 955 (1.981); decision to grant,or deny a request ·for court~appointed counsel .in proceedings under the· Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act lies within the. discre• tion. of the trial court; standard for determining· whether· to' ap­pOint counsel :for ail indigent petitfoner ~in a ·:post.i.conviction proceeding is whether the .. petitioli' alleges facts· showing the pos­sibility of·a'.:valid'.claim;~ ill' so determining· trial court should COrisider- Whether Ith~' facts "alleged are~ Such that· a reasonable persqn with: a4eq1:1~~e 'fueans, ~oUJd be Willing to retain counsel to concf tict a further. investigatiOn 'into the "claims); Hall v.' 'State, 155 'Id"aho 610~ ·si5 P.3d· 798 '(2013, (death sentence case; 'the rig:Q:t to cou_llsel;' iii. postconyiction p~o~eedings is not ·~. 'consti,tu:. t~onal ::clg~~(~ule 44'.~;. Idaho')~:. ·c#m: Ptoc., :p~ovides. for the mandatocy: .appointment of counsel for postconvfotion re\riew after .the impd~itiori· of the . 4~~th' pe,na)ty; capitaf po~tconyic#on petiti~ners"11~v;~fa st~tuto¥jfright tO conflict-free cotins~l; petition~ ers ·s~eking postconvfotic;m relief d<? npt have a constitutfonal right·t9 coriflict free counsel; recogfil.zing t:pis, on appeal; both ~he State' a.lid Hall :argile that thls ·eoun should extend a statutory right to confiict-free counsel, premised on this Court's Sixth Amenqment fraµiework of, analys~s, .for. petitionE}rs: ~~~king_ post­convi~.tion.· relief from ·a death: se~tehce; we . agree;' fu this state, postconviction petitioners sentenced to· death hav~: ,a" statutory right to counsel when seeking a postconviction remedy; thus, the issue becomes whether Rule· 44.2(1) grants·· postconviction petitioners sentenced: to deatP, :the ·right to haV'e ~confiiCt-free counsel; we hold it does); lfall .v. State; 156 Idaho 125, 320 ;P.3d

· 1284. (Ct .. App. ·2014) .. (we first consider postconviction petitioner Hall's! assertion that· the. ,district ··court impro.perly. .refused to ap­point counsel to ;represent: Hall in these cases; if a postconviction petitioner. is unable to pay .for .the expenses of representation,. the ·trial court may appoint counsel,to represent the petitionerj;Idaho Code § 19-4904; counsel should be appointed if the petitioner is indigent, .. unless the. co~rt dE:'~t'~ines th~t the postcon,yictipn proceeding is friv9lous; in deterniiµing whether to ·appoint counsel pursuant' to § 19-4904, the 'district court should. coil.sider that petitions filed by a pro se petitioner may be conclusory and incomplete; facts sufficient to state a claim· may. 'not. ·be ·alleged because· they def not· exist.or because the pro .se petitioner-does not know the essential elements of a claim; ·some claims, hpwever, are so _patently frivolous that they could not be developed jnto vi-

18

§ 15:16'l

able claims ;ev~n, with. the ~assistance ·of qo.unsel; if the co.urt de~ides that the claimsin .the petition\ are frivolous, it:·. should provide.-isufficient_notice regarding, the. :basis for its· ruling. to.en­able the petition.er to provide, additional. facts; if they. exist, to dem.onstrate;the.exia.ten;ce ofa non-frivolous claim; if, i:n respons.e, the .petitio~er, alleges. facts .. t.o ·raise ,the; possibility of~ valid claiIJi, the ,district court should appoint 1 counsel in o;fder to give .the .petition~r _:an opportunity with counsel to, properly allege) the ne~­es$ary: :.supporting fac~s;· :Qther.wise, the, court niay, deny .the req\J.est ·for: counsel: and sum.m,arily di$llliss, ~the, petitioJ;l); Eby· l.1· State, ;148 Idaho .731, ·228 P.3d 998 !(2010)-(§.19-49,04:does· autho­rize :the .appointment, of counsel ·for _indigent: .postconviction petitioners; the decision.: to; appoint counsel is· left, to the discre­tion :of the trial court; th~ same .i~. tr,ue for ~e;_substitution of ap­pointed ·CO\lllSel); .Melton,),). Stq,te, 148 Idaho 339,l 223 . r .3d 281 (2009). (decision. ;~o. grant or. deny. a: request .for a cQtU,"t-:-appointE}d atwrney lie&: within the discfietion of .the~ district. court; a:t a mini­mum,. the tpal. ~ourt .must;:carefu~ly consider-..the request for counsel, before i:eacb.4ig a decision. on the substantive merits. of the. petition; trial collfi;,should determii;ie if the ;petitioner_ is aQle to afford CQunsel ~nd wheth~r. t~s1 is a ,situation .in which .. coWlsel should be.11ppointed::to, ass~st;the petitioner; by not sp~cifically addreeaing ·the .appojntm.ent, ofi coum~el issue before ·.dealing with the supstantive issuea of the p~ijtion, the districtcol,llt _abused .its W$Cr.etion;_ in determining whether the appointm~nt of C,OU~~el would b.e appropriate, every;inference;mua.t·run jri the,petitioner's favo:f where. the petitioner is unrepre1;1e.nted at that t~eJ and{c~I" not be· expected to know Jiowirto properly. allege_ the ·necessary facts; "when c9nsjdering a U10tion (or appoiiitment of col?-ns~l,.Jhe trial court D1~St dQ more .than:~determin.e·;w.hether t;he ·petitip,n aJr legea a valid~ claim; the. court,. ml).st. also :_consiqer whethei;· circuin~ stan~e~ ·prevent, the. petitipner from making a,more .thoroug~ ~nvestigatioµ!1ip.to the facts; ;aJ;l .indjgent·_defendant·rwho._is incarcerated in the ~·p~nitentj.lll"Y iWoµld aln;iost certainly be unable to .conduct .an inves~igation i:p.tQ facts, .not already. contained ii;t the court. record; lilrewise, a.,pr9 ,se .. petitioner ·may J:>e unable to present sutfici~n.t fact$. showmg that his. or. he,r cpuns~l's perfor­manc~; w;as deficien.t . pr that. such defi~ie~cy: pr.ejudiced t~~ defense; that showing·willqften r.equire tl;ie .assi$tance ·of som~­one trained in the, law; therefor~; .tJ:1,_e:.~~~-couJ1; {;hould· EJ.pppiJ;ti coune~lif the _petition, alleges.;facts :showing the possibility:9_~.a valid claim: sgch ~hat a .re.aso~able. person with adequate. me~s would be willing to retain counsel to condµct a. further. jµyestig~­tion into the claim; the investigation by counsel inay no~ p~oduc;~ eY:idqnce sµfticient to, survive 0:, moti9~ to dis~s.s;. }?ut,. t~e· ,d~¢.~ .sio11 tp appoint ,counsel and the- decision- .on the, merits of the: peti-

19

§ 15:16 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

tion if counsel is appointed are controlled.by two different stan­dards"); Schwartz v. State, 145 Idaho 186, 17'1 P.3d 400 (Ct. App. 2008) (there is no constitutionally protected. right tO the effective assistance of counsel. in postconviction relief pr.oceedings; thus, such an allegation,· in and of itself, is. not· among the: permissible grounds ·for postcoilviction relief); Workman ·v. State, 144 Idaho 518, '164 P.3d 798 (2007) (defendant was not' entitled to appoint­ment of .-counsel on petition· for postcon\'iction relief, where defendant failed to allege facts in support of valid claim that would require further investigation on defendant's behalf; the .de­cision to grant or deny a request for court-appointed counsel in postconviction proceedings lies within the discretion of the district court); Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 152 P.3d 12 (2007) (Idaho Code § 19-853 was amended to make clear that appointment of counsel at· public· expense,in postconviction ·cases shall be in ac­cordance with Idaho Code § · 19-4904; thus, § 19-852 no longer ap­plies in postconviction cases and appointment Of counsel in those cases· is governed only by '§ 19-4904; the· proper standard· ·for determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a postconviction ·proceeding is whether the· petition alleges facts showing the possibility of-a valid claim; when con~id.ering a motion for appointment of counsel, the trial court must do more than determine whether the petition. alleges : a valid claim; the court must also consider whether circumstances· prevent the petitioner from making a more thorough investigation into the facts; ·ari indigent defendant who is incarcerated in the peniten­tiary would ·almost certainly be unable to conduct ail investiga­tic:m into facts not already contained in the court record;· likewise, a pro se petitioner may -be unable to present sufficient facts show­ing that· his or her com;1sel's performance was ·deficient or that such deficiency· prejudiced the defense; that showing. will often tequire :the assistance of someone trained in the law;· therefore, the trial court should ·appoint counsel if the petition alleges facts showing the possibility, 'of· a valid cl'aim such that a reasonable person with adequate means would be willin~to·retain counsel to conduct a further investigation into the Claim; the investigation by counsel ~ay not produce evidence sufficient to survive a mo­tion to dismiss; but, the' decision to appoint counsel and the deci­sion on· the merits of the petition it counsel is appointep are con­trolled by two different standard's);· Charboneau v. State, 140 Id~ho 789, 102· P.3d 1108 (2004) (district judge summarily dismissed Charboneau's petition: by determining that Charbon­eau's proffer of new· evidence was ·neither new nor admissible ev­idence; to justify a postconviction evidentiary hearing; however, the· district judge failed to rule on Charboneau's request for ap­pointment of counsel prior to decidfng the substantive issues

20

IDAHo· . § 15:16

contained in the ·petition; 1 a request for appointment of counsel in a postcortviction proceeding is governed by Idaho Code § 19-4904, which provides that in ,proceedings under'. the UPCPA, a court ap­pointed attOrney "may be made available"· to an applicant who:is unable .to pay the costs· of representation; the decision to grant or deny a request for court appointed counsel lies 'within~ the discre­tion of the district ·court; the Court of Appeals has ruled that when a district court is presented with a request for ·appointed counsel~ the court must add~~ss this request before ruling 'on'the substantive issues in th~ case; a needy:_applican.t for postconvic­tion ·relief is ·entitled: to court appointed counsel unless the trial co~ detemrines that the postconviction ·proceeding is frivolous; a; proceeding is frivolous if it· is' not a' proceeding that a reason­able person with adequate ·means would ·be willing to bring: at hi_s own expense; it is essential that the petitioner be given adequate _notfoe' of tbs clai~ed defects so' he has an ·opportunity to respond and to give the trial court an adequate basis. for deciding the need ~for counsel based ·up.on the· merits of the claiµis; if the court decides that -the claims in the petition are frivolc>US; the court shoula provide sufficient' information regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to supplement the'request With the necessary additional facts, if. they ~x.ist; although_ the petitioner is not entitled to have· counsel appointed in order' to search the, record for possible· non.frivolous ·claims, ·he should be provided with a meaningful opportunity to supplement the record and to renew his request for court appo_inted counsel prior. to the dismissal of.his ·petition· where, as here,' he has· alleged .facts sup~ porting some elem~nts· of' a valid claim; here, the district judge should have first 'deterinined whether Charboneau was entitled to, court appointed counsel before denying .Postconvi~ti.on relief on its me;rits; baseQ. .. upon our decision in Quinlan v. lda]ip Com~nfor Pardons cind·Parole,,138 Idal,io 726~.69.P.3d 146 (200~), it is clear ~hat the standards imposed by Idaho Code § 19-852 ~e no longer applicable to the court's determination of entitlement to .counsel in a postconviction proceeding; for the purposes of Idaho Code § 19-4~04, the trial court should determine if the pe~itioner :is able to afford counsel ~and. whether this is a .situation in which coun,sel sh~uld be appointed to assist the peti~ioner; by not specifically addressing the appointment of coui;i.s.el is~ue before dea!4ig with the substantive issues of Charboneau's petition, the

. district court abused its discretion; while clearly the ·standard permits the trial court to determine whether the. facts alleged are such that they jti~tify the appointment of ~ounsel, in determining whether fa do so/evecy inference must ru11: 'in the petitioner's favor where the petitioner is unrepresented at that time·'and can­not· be expected to know how to· properly allege the necessary

21

§ 15:18 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

facts; .. at. a mini~um~ .the. triat.court must, carefully consider~the request:for .counsel, ·before reaching, a ~ecision1·on the .substantive merits .of ,the petition and whether. it;.contains:. 1new.:and . .admis­sible evidence);i Brown v: State, 135 Idaho 676, 23 P .3d .138 ;(2001), the; Idap.o ·Supreme .Court addressed the standards and·procedures for appointment of counsel in· .postconviction actions; the Supreme Court.,there stated.that a ~eque.st' for appoi~ted counsel.is goveqJ.ed by :~o .s~~t\l~S, ~daho _99de. § U~-4:QQ4. and ld~o .lCo~e § 19~S5~·;"" the Supreme . .1Court. held-t~~t..~nder tP...o~e. staF.ut.es,J\ postc9nvj._ction petitjo~er J$. en.titled. to · co,urt-appointed. ~o~~~ael u11less· the, ipe.tition ,is. friyolou~; the! Supreµie Court .furth~r directe~.·that. if: the . ttjal c9¢ deeJµ-S the applic~tion. ftjv.o}Q,~e.J and the~efq~e .. conclude~, that,,appointment of. co~se~~ shq,ulq be qeni.ed; ~~·-~a& erro~ for ,the, <Ust~ct court tq deny New~~n's mq~ tion: f,or,,counsel withoµt, first .. givin.g notice of: p_~rce~veq deficie:p.-9ies in .the p,leadi.~g and.affording :New:µian .. t]ie ,Qppqi;tunity~ .. tp supple~ent: .the1 re.qtjes~ wit:P, theJ .n.ecessary- additional f~Qts, if they,,exi$t); Q~~n~µn. p. ld,aho Com~~ for fardons rin.<f Pµrol~, J38 Jdah9 ·~:2f>,_.69. ·P,34. 14~ (~O.Q~) (afte~ Brown .. v. Stat~, ~35 Jrl:ahq ~76,. ,23 P ~3d 1;38 (2.001). the <;ode W.~$ .am~nded to .m~e-.cleal' :that ~ppointme,_,~t of co~~l at public expe11se :in. postcQll,viction. ~c;:~s~s undei; ~hell)'PC~4. $hall 'Qe in ~ccqrd~nc~.wi~h ld~o Code,§ 19· 4904;~ thU;E?; Jd$.o. Cod~.§ .. l.97~52. ;no l~mge~ appli~.~Jn .p9stconvi,~7 tj.Oil cases and appc>intn,lent of c~>Unsel in those ~s is g~vepi.ed only. by Idaho . .Code § 19,"'.4904). . : .. , , .. .. , . -.

§ l~~l 7 .. Unifo~ i;i~st-Co~Viction Ji>rQ~~d:ure ~~t up,4~~. . , . ' ; .: . , Id~(). Code .§§. J9~490l ~o ~9-49~~~~igb{,to '. · , ..

. •.• 1 qo~se)-Idabp Crimin~ ~~~~,Rule.44.2: , ·: .;1

'Under Rule ';1:4:2~ Idaho Crim. ·R.; adopted effective Aug; .. 31; 19.95, and mlnended effectiv.e Feb~ 1, 2003, an· indigent sentenced to :death iri:·Idaho does have a right to appointed counsel for plirposes'·of seeking 'state pos_tconvictio~ relief from· the conVi~tion or sentence. . . ' . ' "r ' " . : . ' ' . . , ; .

1 • ~· ). ' ; : ' • ~ ' ~ ' ' j ,; ' l • • • • : I ' : ' • ' • i J

§; 15:18 ~ · Uniform· Post~·Conviction Procedure Act under; : .:. · ; : : Idah() Code'§§. 19-4901 to· 19-4911-Right :to ; , :; i :

··counsel-Idaho Criminal ·Rules~ Rule· 44~2-Te:Kt ·of· , , Idaho Criminal Rules, Ruie·:44.2 · ' 1

• :.. . ' ·: · - "~'

Rule ·44.2, Id~hq:c~ .. ;R., ·proVicies;; ::·j:, ·;.·

: '• , ' ' _ ·, , ") : ~ -> ,. : ' , : 1 _- • • • • • • , ~ i ~ !. ', . . · • : .. _ : • 1 • r 1 i r ' ••

.RlJl..E ._,.~ ~TPRY1~;1?9.IN.J.'ME~:Olft.; ,,·11 :~ :'; ... QOUNS~L.FOR .~OSTCONVIPTION REVIEW AFTER. lMPOs)r10NOFD~Til.:P~NALTy .... ··.·'· .:· ;· '· ;.

(1} Immediately foll~wi_ng. the im:positioJl· .of .the death

22

I

I § 15:19

penalty, the district- judge'. who seµtenced' the· defendant· shall appoiµ:t at leaat' one attorney to. represent .the defendant for the purpose of seeking any postconviction remedy referred to in LC. § 19-2719(4) that the defendant may "ch.oose to seek. This appointment. shall be made iQ. compliance·· With the- sta.nciards

, set forth in Idaho Criminal Rule 44 .. :~, a~d the atforri.ey ap­·::poirited shall be someone other tharf·couna·e1 who represented

the defendant prior to the imposition of the death penalty. This new counsel shall not be considered to be co-counsel with any other·!attorriey who .represents·~the, defendant,• but may also ~be appointed to.-pli'rsue the direct· appeal for the· defendant.

(2). Compensation and Payment of Expenses. · (a) ·Unless· counsel is· employed by a· publicly funded· office,

lead cou:n.sel appointed to represent Br· capital defendant in postconvictipn proceedings ,shall be: paid' an· hourly rate of on~. h:u~Q.re,Q; dollars. ($lQ0;0_0), per hour.·. .. ·

(b) The trial court shall.authorize additional'payments for 'expenses incide.ntal. to representatio~ (including, but· not limited to, i~vestigative, expert and· other preparatio;n expen­ses) necessary:to adequately litigate those post.conviction claims· that are allowed pursuant to· I.C.. § 19-2719, to the

· · . same extent. as. a person having, retained ·his own counsel is entitled~ .. ·

· · · .... · (c) Competi.sation. and paytiient nf :el[penses shall be made '·pursuant'·toiihe· proVisitjns 'o{I.d~ § 19~860(b)~ · C_o'unsel ·shall submit timely claims for compe:nsatiOn and paY,merit ;of ex­penses in the manner provided in I.C .. §§ 31-1501' et seq:

' I ~ ~ • ~ ' ' ; ' • _l ; • ' : '_: .~ ; t , • '. ·: t I l •:; '•. 1 ', ~ , ~. • , ' ." ' ~ ~::. i . '• , ; '

·,Thus, there is 'S.t present.a rigbt.;to·counsel:fo an Idaho UPCPA proceeding':in. a death s~ritence ckse~ but not in a noncapital case.

,.•' I ~· r '·j '_J" , ;_,._ I,··.~; ":' •,-,.I~.~: ~; .•,,' ,\ ,/(_

§ us:19 ·. Unuorm Post.;convi~tion ·Procedure '.Act ·under • • · ! ; Id~o .Code H. 19~4901 · ~~. i9-4jf ll~iUght .to., , . · · · c~lJ#s.e.I~ldlibp Prn.iinal ~ules~: RUJe f.&~2~Cas.~

·'·.'..: ·· ~'· law·· .· ... 1

•• : .• 'i•,· · · .·: ·..• · · · •· ·

·:.:For case· law ·involving, Rule' 44.2; ·see,, e.g.; State v. Lovelace, 140.'jidaho 53, 90 'P.3d 278 (2003), :on reh~g, 140· Idaho 73, 90· P.3d 298 (2004) (rig~t ·to. counsel in .postconviction proce~dings is not a constitutional :right, -but ·a, matter 'left to the. discretion of the. trial judge; howeveJJ, Rule-44.2 provides for the ·mandatory appoint­ment: of counsel for postconviction.revie.w after the imposition: of the death penalty; when waiving·.the. right to counsel, the· waiver is tested. by examining· the~ totality of· the circumsta~ces). . .

23

§ .15:20 STATE PosTCoNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 15:20 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under·. Idaho Code §§ 19-4901 to 19-4911 ..... Text of § 19· 4905

- 19-4905. ·costs· of state~ 'All. costs arid .~xp~n~es necess~rlly 'incurred by the state in

the proceedings.E?hall be paid. by.the county in. which the ap-plica~i~n i~ filed.. · · · · ·

§ 15:21 . Uniform. Post-Conviction Procedure Act under . Idaho Code §§ 19-4901 to· 19-4911-Text of §. 19- · 4906

19~4906. Plead4tgs and.judgment.on pleadings. (a)· Within 30 days after the docketing of the application, or

within any further·time the· court niay fix, the state shall re­spond by answer or by motion which may be supported by affidavits. ~t any time prior :to entry of judgment the court may grant leave to withdraw the application. The court may. make appropriate orders for amendment of the application or any pleading or· motion, for filing further. pleadings or motions, or for extending the time of the filing of any pleading. In consider­ing the application the court shall take account of substance regardless of defects of form. If the application is· not ac­companied by the record of the proceedings challeng~d therein, the respondent shall file With, its answer the. record or portions thereof that ~e ma~erial to,. the ··questions raised in the application. · ·

(b) Whe~ a court' is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or .motion, and .. the. record, that the applicant is· not entitled tQ .. postconvictio~ re;tief and.no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its intention to disll)iss the application and it~ reasons for SQ doing. The applic~t shall be given ~ opportunity to reply within 20 days to the p'<;>posed dismissal.· In ~ight of t.he ~eply, or on default thereof, the court may order the· applicatidn dismissed or grant leave to file an amended application or, direct that the proceedings otherwise continue. -Disposition, on the pleadings and record is not proper if there exists a inat~rial issue of fact.

(c) The court may grant ·a motion by either 'party for sum­mary disposition of the application when it appear.a, from the pleadings, ·depositions, answers to· interrogatories; and admis­

. sions and agreements. of fact, together ·with.any, affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue· of material 'fact and the moving party is entitl~d to judgment as a matter of law.·

24

IDAHO. § 15:22

§ 15:22 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under· Idaho Code :§§ 19-4901 to 19-4911-§ 19-4906-Case la\V · ,

• : " • I I ' ' ' ' \ ' : •I , , • , 1 • ' • _ ~

'For ·case law on Idaho Code § 19-4906, see e.g., Dunlap v. State, 159 Idaho 280, 360 P.'3d 289 (2015) (shmmary·dismissal of a p~st-con\riction relt~( peti#on m.ay be appropriate. eyen ~here the State doe~. not"contro:vert ~~~ ·~pplicant's evidence becaiis~' the court is not t-eqtiired to a'Ccept either' the applicant's mere conclusocy allegations,' 'uti'suppbrted by admissible evidence,. or the applicant's-'conclusioiis of law; allegations contained iil ·a peti~ tioti for'. post~convicticin. relief are· insufficient for; the granting of relief'if:-(1}-the petitfoner ·has not ·pres.ented ·evidence making· a prima facie ·case as r to each essential element' of the claims;• :(2) the Claill}S ·are. clearly disproved· by the record ·of. the· original proceedings;.· or· (3) the claims do not justify .relief as a matter• of law); Adams.·v.:State,· 158 Idaho 530, ·348 P.3d 145 (2015) (sum­mary dismissal ·of a ;.petitiOn. for~; post-conviction: relief is. the procedural equivalent of swnmary judgment in ;a civil action; therefore, summary dismissal is ·permis'sible. only when ·the petitioner fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact that, 'if resolved in . the petitioner's favor,. would entitle the .petitioner to the relief requested; summary dismissal of· an application· for post.;;conviction relief may be· appropriate even where the· State does .not ~controvert the applicant's evidence, because the court· is not required tO accept either the ·applicant~s mere conclusory al­legation8, unsupported by admissible evidence; or the applicant's conclusions of law);· Zepeda v. State, 152 Idaho 710; 274 P.3d 11 (Ct. App. 2012) (as the trial court rather than a jury will .be the trier ·of fact in the event of an evidentia.ry hearing, summary dis­missal of an application for postconviction relief is appropriate where. the evidentiary facts are not- disputed, despite the. possibil~ ity of conflicting inferences to be chawn. from .the facts, for. the court alone will be responsible for resolving the conflict. between those· inf~rences);;Kelly v.: State, 149 Idaho 517, 236 P.3d 1277 (2010) (where a.trial court swpmarily dismisses a postconviction claim based upon ·grounds other than those offered by the State's motion fqr summary dismissal. and accompanying memoranda, the applicant. seeking .postconviction relief must be provided with a.20-day ~otice:period, but where the dismissal_·is based in· whole or' in· pati ·upon the ·grounds· offered by. the· State, additional no­tice is unnecessary); DeRushe v.: State, 146 Idaho 599, 200 P.3d 1148 (2009) (a claim . .for postconviction; relief will be subject to summary dismissal pursuant. to-section · 19~4906 of. the Idaho Code ifthe applicant has not presented evidence making a·prima facie case as to each essential 'element of the ·claims upon· which the applicant bears the. burden of proof; summary dismissal may

25

§.15:22 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

be appvopriate even ~whete the. State ,does ·not ,controvert the. ap­plicant's· eVideriee because· the court is~· not. reqUir.ed. to' accept ei­ther the applicant's mere conclusory allegations, unsupported by ~.4znissible. evid~nce, or the applicant~s COQ~~tisio.n,s .of l~w.; cli~t~ct coUrt. cannot· clisi;lijss claims ··on. ,its O)Vn. niQtiOI\ if it does

1 not· give

~~ !?~~~ ~· ~e11:ty~day priot noti~ .sta.~g .~~. r~asc?~s for. ~~~~pg SQ as .reqwred by Idaho Code § 19~4906(b);· liKewise, if the State µiQves ut9 ';d.isllii~s,· a petitiOn iin4e.r .t.da.ho ,.Coa~. § 19~4~06(c), t~e court .~~at .<P~mi~~!· t1 claim Q~f~ .. ~ol:ln.a ~o~ a~$~rte~ .. ~Y.·.~!-"+e ~.t~~e i~. its i;notjoµ. :unle,ss ::~he court .giv~.$. ~h~ twe11:ty;-day ~ot1c.e req~d by Section 19-490~(b); cli~tr;ictjudg~ also.~rrs iµ di.sµHss­ing:~ petitio~ where:th.e State (iQes ~pt allege..EU.ly_grounds fo~ ,tJ;ie <iismiss.aJ, gther .. than·. ld~h9 Code §§. l~-.4f)Q1 ·~tFseq); State. v. Payll,e, 146 . .ldaho .548, 199 P • .Sd;.123 .. (2008) (like the :plaintiff in .a civiL'action, the ·applic&Dt mus~ prove by a· preponderflnce: of evi~ dence the allegations· upon which the request for postconv.iction relief' is based; summary disprlssal is·. i»ermissible·,only. when, the applicant's. evidence has :raised: no, geniline, issue. of materiaLfact that, jf resolved ·in th~ ·applicant's favor, would: entitle the. ap~ plicant to the relief requested; if such a factual issue~is presented, an .evidenti~hearing niust.-be cohducted);.Andetson v. State., 2007 WL 322;7294 (Idaho· .Ct. App .. 2007) (a petitioner isi entitled to notice. and !an opportunity <to·respond before his ;petition;fo:r postconviction.relief is disinissea. I.C~:§ 19-4906(b); if dismissal is based ·upon the state's motion .for summary dismissal, this require~ent. is met )only if the -motion . states, wi~h .particularity the groUlid on·which:.siimiliary dismissal is sought; broad and:ge­neric contentions of- deficiencies. in a petition for. postconviction relief do ,not suffice; proper. notice must refer to specific allega­tions j.n t.he petition ·on· a claim~by~cJ.aim basis, and.specifically re­fer to· deficiencies in the evidence or, adclitional legal analysis nec­essary to' avoid· sum-Diary ;clismissal of the claim;: if the state~s motion does not ·pro~de·adequate nbtice,. any clismissal·.granted by: the :district court; Will be treated as ~: ·s.ua sponte clismissal that requires .the district court to. give the .. applicant twenty· days' notice' of intent ,to dismiss, and the grolinds the:refore); · Char.hon~ eau :v., .State, 140 Idaho ·789, 102 tP·.3d 110~ .(2004) .(p~tition: for postconviction. relief :is a ;.civil action alloW;ed ·by. .the: ,authority of the 1UPCP A; the. provisions of the UPCPA govern all postconvic­tion claims that. do not involve the death sentence; sµmmary1 dis­missa1' ·of a. :petition fur postconviction .relief is .the· procedural equivalent· ·Oft suminany ;judgment. under. Rule .. ·56;· Idaho R . .Civ.Proc., and this court must determine:whether-a genuine. is­sue. of materiaLfact·exists, with-.inferences:liberally construed in favor of 1the ··petitioner;: essentially, ~the -task of this. -court is to determine-whether: the appellant has, allege.d facts in .his: petition

26

IDAHO ;§ 15:23

that if true, would entitle.;liim·to.relief;,·ithe di~trict-judge ·sum­marily dismissed Charboneau's ·petitiOn ,·by detEfrmining · tl;1.at Charboneau's pr.offer of:n~w.evidence w~s neither·new,.,nor,admis­sible ·evidence rto jus.tify.,a. pQatconviction. evif;\e:Q.tiacy hearin,g); Griffin v. State,' 142· l4~l)o. 438,· 128 Pt3d-·975 (CJ;, APP•. 2006) (trial rcourt ~may S\Ulllllarily dismiss. a p~tition. for; postconvictjon relief, ,~~ther. jup.on· mQtion of -a·.:Pm1Y. or o:ti the co~'s j ow:J;l initia­tive, if the petitioner's evidence ha.s .raised .no gei;mi~~Jssµe of material fact which, if resolved in the petitioner's favor, would

· entitl~ him to the requested relief; however,_ trial .cou,rt may not dismiSs(a petit_ion· fo;r· pos~con\Tictiori relief·sua sponte Without first giving "notice of its intent, stating the ·grounds .for the dis­missal with particularity; and allowing the petitioner 20 days in wJlich t~ :respond; $Uch notice ~(in~nt. to clisnµss. mus~ .give no­tice' 9f ~Y deficiencies· in the: pe~~t~oner's ,evi<1:ence ()r any legal analysisJhat .he need..~ fo' ~-~dr~·s(iµ order. to av_oid clis~~sal of Iµs·, action; a successiye: p~titjon fQt' .J>ostcon:viction relief may, b.~ ~ull?'..m~-~~ly 'dismissed _if, tlie:··g-rounds_ for relief we.re: pn~l~y adjudica:~d or waiv~d in tp.e previous. postconviction 'proceedili:g; such_grouridamay be relitigated~.however, if the petitioner snows suffici~ll'.t"reason why .they 'were' in;a~~qu~t~y prese.nted ill: the priginal .c~~ef '.~lth<jugh~ a ~laim1 Q.f ineffectiv~. postcC>nvictiqn c.o~s.el,. ,standing alonet ·is hot grbunds for l postcoilvictfori ·relief, ~n.; :·~ue~at.~on. t~.~f ~- ~1~m. ~as· ~qt · ~~.eqµ~te~y: _pres'e!,i~~~. in

1 ,t~e .

firs~: pos~convic~~o~ .. actio~ d~~ W}~~- .<l~#~ency· of pnor. postco~~ yictf<>n .. coun·~-~l, if ~~ue,, ;P.royid~s ·suffi.cien.t· re~~O.li:'to per'~t tpe cl~ms· to. be _pr~se~ted again ·41 ~· s~pseque~t· pe_tition).. · ' - ~. .

i I . • , -.. : , , • ; J ,4' • , , : ._,:: ._, ~ J , : - · t) • • 1

· § _lp:~S · ·uni.f~rm-Pq~t~p~i\tictjon.Pro.~~.d~e Act und~r · · · !" '':. . . Idaho' Coae:_ §§ !19-•soi to l9-491l~Text of § 19~ ,

. '" 4907. · .. '·: ! •• ·, •. : .:'' . . l· ...

\ t ; " ) J - ' • \ 1 : ~ ' • , I ' , ' : i ; l .: • "

,.194eo7. · llearing-Evide.Qce--Orde~~res~nce of.. · ·· · · . ' < applicant •. .- .: . . ·.:~ . · . . . : . . (a)· .The :application :shalL~be heard in, and before any judge

of,,.the court in which the ·conviction took place. A record of the . · .proceedings ,shall: be made and preserved. All rules and .statutes

applicable.jn civil.:proceedings. including .pr~~trial, discovery :. a_nd appellate .proeedures ·are available to the ·parties. The court

may, receive proof by· affidavits, depositions, oral testimony,. or . other evidence:and:·may·order the applicant brought,before it

. · .. ·for the hearing, If, the court finds' in .favor of the applicant, it ·. shall· enter an appropriate, order witµ respect to. the conviction .. or sentence.in:the fortner proceedings, and any·:supplementary

orders_. ·as· to rearraignment, 1retrial, · custody, bail, di$charge, correction of sentence, or other .matters tpat may be necessary and -proper ... The court shall .fnakeispecific findings of fact,i·and

27

.§ 19:23 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

state expressly its conclusions of law, relating .to each issue presented. This order is· a -fi~al judgment~ · · · · ·

(b)' The applicant should-·be ·produced at the hearing on. a motion attacking a s~ntence•where there are stlbstantial-issues of fact as to evidence in which ·he. partiriipated. The sentencing co·urt has ·discretion to ascertaiii·whether the claim is substan.;.

· tial before granting a full evidentiafy hearing :a.nd requiring the· applicant to be present: · · · ·

I•

§ · 15:24 Uniform Post-Convictio~· Procedure Act under. Idaho Code§§ 19-4901to19-49il,-Discovery­

·: . . Case la:w.

Discovery in Idaho UPCPA proce~dings is regwated by. Idaho Code§ 19-4907(a) and Rule57(b); Idaho Crjm. R. For case law on discovery in postconviction proceeqiri.gs, see e.g., State v. Abdul­lah, 158 Idaho 386, 348 P.3d t (2015) (because discovecy in post;. convictiorl: proceedings was procedural, rather than substantive, matter, criminal' rul~ stating that rules of civil ·procedure did not apply, rather, than provis~oil. of ·Uniform Post-Conv:iction· Proce­dure Act. stating that civil rules applied in post-convfotion pr9ceedings, .goverried); Statii.v .. LePage, 138, Id4bo ~93, 69 ·P.3d 1064 (Ct_., .A.PP· ~003) ·ca.1~h~u~h· t~e Idaho,Rules of Q~vil ~roce~ d~e ge~erally. apply to· proceedings· ori. an app~catioq for. post­.C?Qnviction relief, t~e discov~fy ·provis~ons contained ii?- those ~les are not applicable unless specifically .orde:r~d .bY. the co·urt,. I;?ule 57(b), Idaho Crim. R~; discovery during 'postconviction relief proce.edings is a ~atter put to the .~ound discretion of the .district court; unless necessacy to' p'rotec.t an applicant's 'substantial rights, the district court is. not reqwred to order discovery; in or-

. der to be granted discovery, a postconviction applicant must identify the specific subject matter where discovery is ·requested and why discovery as to those matters is necessacy to his or her application; because it -was rejected: on direct appeal, petitioner's ineffective counsel claim is barred by res judicata); Raudebaugh v. State, 135 Idaho 602, 21·.P.3d 924 (2001) (discovery iµ postcon­viction .proceedings .is· allowed· only with authorization of the .court pursuant to Rule 57(b), Idaho Crim. R.; the decision to authorize discovery is a matter left to 'the sound discretion of the district court; unless discovery is necessary to protect , an applicant's substantial rights, the district court is·'not required to order discovery); State v.' LePage, 138 Idaho 803, 69 P.3d 1064 (Ct. App. 2003) (although the Idaho Rules· of Civil :Procedure gener­ally apply to proceedings on an application for postconviction relief, the discovery provisions contained in those rules are not applicable unless specifically ordered by the court, Rule 57(b),

28

IDAHO' , § 15:26

Idaho· Crim.~ R.;; ~scovery. during p6stconviction relief proceedings is .a matter put to the sound discretion of the·district court; un­less necessary to protect an applicant's substantial rights, the district court is not required to order discoveey; · in order· to be granted discovery, .a postconviction applicant· must identify the specific subject matter where ,discovery is requested and why discovery. as" to those· matters is necess·ary. to his or ·her application).

I '

§ 15:25 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under Idaho Code§§ 19-4901to·l9-4911-Text.of§19;. . 4908:·. ., .r·:

19-4908. Waiver of or failure to assert claims. All irounds for relief available· to an applicant under this act

. must be .raise,c} in .his, original, supp,l~n,ie~tal or. amended application. Any ground :finally. adjq.d;icated or not_ so. raised, or

.' knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently w~v~d ·~ the. proceed­. ing that resulted in the convictiQn. or sentence or in. any other . proceeding the applicant. has_. taken to secure relief may n<;>t be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court ti.rids a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asseited or was inac;leqq'~tely ~filsed 'in the original, supplemen~ '1

tal,. or amende'd application~ . .

§ 15:26 Uniform Post~C~nviction Procedure Act und~r · Idaho· Code §§' 19.-4901 to 19·4911-Text of ·§ 19-490~Case law ' :

For case law on Idaho Code§ 19-4908, see e.g., Murphy v. State, 156 Idaho 389, 327 ~.3d 365.(2014) (s:uccessi~e petitions for post­convic~ion reiief ate not .s.t~t~torily p~ohibited in evety case,· but rather', ·only in those cases wliere the petitioner kno~ngly, volun­tarily and intelligently waived the grounds for which he seeks relief, or offers no sufficient reason for the omission· of those grounds in his original, ·supplemental or amended petition); Eby v. State, 2009 WL 1351536 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009), aft'd, 148 Idaho 731, 228 P.3d 998 (2010) (Idaho courts have long held that deficient represeptation QY cqm~el .in an initial postconvictjon proceeding, 'that caus~s a .clairri"t9 be :inadequately! presented to the court, constitutes' a· ""suffiCient reason" to . allow assertion of the same claim in a subsequent postconviction petition pursuant to I.C. § 19-4908); Griffin. v~ State; 1 142 Idaho 438, 128 P .3d 975 (Ct. App. 2006) (trial court's notice ofintent.to·dismiss.defendant's second petition for postconviction relief,; which notice· stated ·that petition would be dismissed ,because defenciant had raised issues already adjudicated, was: insufficient, under·Uniform Post"'

29

§.:16:28 STATE PosrooNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

Conviction Procedure Act,.in that it did not·give·prc;per :consider~ ation to 1defeildant's :allegation· that his first postconviction action had bee:Q.: di.Smissed !duer·to ineffective assistance of his· postcon~ viction ·counsel; it·· could not· be· discerned· from ·notice whetheD trial court• had. erroneously overlooked. possibility·, t}lat ·such ine£. fective ·assistance .could constitute sufficient -reason for defendant to re-present claims that were inadequately presented in his first case, or decided without explanation that there.was not.sufficient evidenee of ineffective).

:( ~- J •I . ! ' _1 ~ ,. • ~ ' • •

§ 15:27~ ·Uniform Post·Convictfon :Procedure·Act'under Idaho Code §§ 19-4901 to 19-4911-Text -of·:§ 19· 4909 ·· · ; '. ( ~. ~ -~ ··: • , • ·. ·~ ~ ~ : , " ',. ~ _l {~ ';' • ' ' • r ~ • ;,-;

19·4909. 1 Review. ~l· ~ · , • . • • . .

· '. A final judgment entered \indet t~s·act may· be re'Viewed by ;the Sup~eme,.Co'lµ"t :of:tliis 1 s~ate'.·on 'appeal brought ·either.by --

1the ·appli~ant:or1 by·'the state··within forty;..twd (42) days ·fr~m the entry 'of the judgment: On appeal· the· state shall be represented ~liy the attorney general. · · · · , ·

... 1· ' • ' •·• ; ·l.:

§_ 1"?:2.8, .. uDiiorm Post-Co~yi~ti9~ P~oc.edilr~.A.ct. ~d~i; · Idaho Code§§ 19·4901to19·4911-'J)xt of§ 19..-, . 4910 . .J l >; I '\ ' '· ' .

19-4910. · Uniformity of interpr~tatio~ . . . . . , ; , : . This. act 'sh~ll he "so interpreted, and.'co~trued t~) to effe~tu~ ate its general plirpose to make_. uniform the !~w· Qfthose states which enact it. -

I t ', : ' • ~ • • •! • ' ~ • • ! .~ I

·, , •. '~: : ' . . . : • ·, . • t .·· ; . , : \ • • r.. . - ~ :

§.15:~~ Q;nifo~ l.'~st-Convi~ti9,~1 P~ocedU:re ~Qt lµlder . '. ' .ld~o.coae §§ l9~tj901 to,·u~·491l~Text of. *J9~ ' . 4911: "' . . . . . ' . . .~.i: -~~ .;~_'..' '~.'··'

19·4911. · · ~ Short title. , · 'f ' : .t - •. ' . : i·' ' f. ·; . '

-.. This: act may be cited\ as the·· 'Uniform.;Post-Conviction' Proce~ . dureAct. :·: : , .-1: · n ., .. -. ·:'. .- · ... · · ·

: ·''·· ··,1·,·.: .• I • ,, . ' ;

. '.J •

§ us~sb' Umtori:n Post~Con\>-i~tfon P~oc~dure:Aci' under : ·: . . · · ; : ,; . · · · ···ttitilio ·code ... §§ 19•4901: to· i9.49ii~Deiith· ,_ · · · ''. ·· · ~'. · • . ; ,· s~nten¢es • • • . • : '1 • ~ '.). ll 1 : • .) ' i, • . n: .' I\: . • ' .

,· ; ( •( { .. ! ; ~~~ :' .... t ' ::~". J .. _f A .'.! I • :,, ' ~ •. I : •

'. Jn;death:sen:tence icases:only,·.·ldaho;UP.CPA proceedings are governed by: (1) Idaho Code"·§ 19-2!719 ·,(special prelcedur~s to .. be applied to. death: sentence· postconviction cases Jn order .to. elimi­nate unnecess·ary delay ill,·carrying out valid death sentences); (2) Rule~· 44.2-, -Idaho· Crim .. R.' fright .. to: counsel in~ J:daho UPCPA

30

IDAHO . ' .... § 015:82

proceedings in death sentence cases); and. (3). Rule 44.3, Idaho Crim.· .R. (standards for· the qualification of,appointed counsel .in c·apital c,ases). ~d$o Qode § 19-~7i9 Wf:lS enacted. in. i984 and amende4. in 1995. ~nd 2001; and.Rule 44.2.:and Jtule, 44.3 ~ere ?o~h · ~doptecl. +µ. 19~5 B.Ild 8:Ille~qe.d ~~. ¥003. · ~~. ~tat;ute govem­mg postconv1ction proceedings l!). capital cas·es supersedes. the U~o~·Po~it::Convictfon Procedures A¢(Qnly t9 tlle extent. tha'..t they coh.filct. Dunlap v. State, 146_ ldfi}lo 1.97, 19~ P.3d' 1021 (2008) , ; I • , • ' , , - , , , ; , , , I • ' ' . ; • '. 1

1 • '. • . J ' • . • : •• ~ • : ' • ...

§ 15:81 Uliiform:Post.:.Convictfon ·Procedure Act under - · · · Idaho Code n·19.49·01 t<> 19~4911~ustody · · ·

. : ·' requirement ' '

There .js ~o custody r~quirement in ~daho UPc-PA · proceeclfug~. S~e,. .e.g., B.utler v. $tate, 129 Idaho 899, .. 9.35 P .. 2d 162 (1997) (even ~p()ugh .the defendant had' ftilly serVfild hi~. felony sentence~ the qqe~tfons raised in. his ·.l>~';tition f~r I:>osfoonviction ;i-~lief were ript ~oot; a Crimiµal case. is ~OQt .only if it is shown that .there is ~·o .p~ssibi~~ty 'that S:I1Y·. poU~teral legal. cq~sequ~ilce~ will. be impo~e.ii on the basis ofth'e 'cha11enged convi~tio~;· a'felony.:cori.Vic­tion. hits collat~ral ·ccnisequences and the fact that B-q:tler has fully s:ervea his sentence does not moot Butler's a~peal).. : · . . .

, ' _, : , ' ' " ) : , I •

§ 15:82 _t ·Uniform Po$t-Conviction' Procedure Act· under · ·.· ·1daho Code·§§ 19-490l'to 19~4911~1ndependent

civil action . · . ·

A procee~g uµ~ei; the: ldajlQ,_~C~A.i~. an ~ndependept civil. action, not ~ .PPStsenten~ing phas.~ of.the otjgi~al .criminal case. Rule 57(b), 'Idalia Crim. ·R. tpetition for postconviction relief shall be filed· by the ·clerk ·of the 1COurt as· 1a··separate civil case·: and' be processed under the· Idaho :Rules: of Civil Procedure except 'as otherwise ordered' by the trial· court; .the provisions- .for· discovery iru the ldaho.·Rules ·of Civil Procedure s;hall ·not apply to·:the proceedings .unless .. and: only to the ·extent: ordered; by the _trial court). See, e.g., State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 313 P.3d l (201.3) (proceeding~. f9r .p.ost-convi~tion relief. ~~ .civil in nature, r~ther th.~ crimina1, ,and the. appli<;:AAt n.i:ust t~~~efore prove .th0t _all~ga­tions in the.request, for relief by a preponde:rance of the: ~Viden:~~); Ridgley v. Stat~, 14~: Idaho· 671, 227. P;!~d 9~5 (2019) (petitioi;i. for po~~co11-y.icti()n _ te~ief i$, a civil proc~eding., governed iby tpe lcial?-q ~~-~s of O~~l ~roc~du:r;~); 4.n~rsqri v. ,S~a,te, ~2~07 ~ ,3~?.'!~~~ (Idaho Ct. App •. 2~Q'O (@ .action fo~ po~tconVIction reli~f is civil in µ~ture. and is governe4 by. tlie Jdaho Rill~~ of Civil P;rocedure; like a plaintifflin a civil action~-· the ap'plicant must prove ,by·~ preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the request

81

§ 15:32 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

for postconviction relief is based. ·1.c~ § 19-4907; an application for· postconviction relief differs from a complaint in an ordinary civil action, however, for an application·must contain much more than a short and plai11: statement of the claim,· facts within the personal knowledge of· the ·applicant must be verilled, ·and af~ fidavits, records or other evidence supporting its all~gations must be attacQ.ed or the application must . state why such supporting evidence is not included with the application); State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 199 P.3d 123 (2008) (a postconviction relief petition initiates a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding); Gilpin-Grubb v. State, 138 Idaho 76, 57 P.3d-_ 787 (2002) (application for post­conviction relief is civil in nature); Martinez v. State, 143 Idaho 789, 152 P.3d 1237 (Ct. App. 2007) (an application for postco~vic­tion relief initiates a proceeding which is civil in nature; like a plaintiff m a civil action; the applicant must prove by a prepon­derance of-evidence the allegations upon which the request-for postconviction relief is based); Lamm v. State, 143 Idaho 763, 152 P.3d .634 (Ct. App. 2006) (an actiOn for postconviction relief is civil in nature and is generally governed by. the Idaho R.ules of Civil Procedure); Franck-Teel v. State, 143 Idaho 664, 152 P.34 25 (Ct. App. 2006) (an appHcation for postconviction reliefimti­ates a proceeding which is civil in nature; like a plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of .~vi­dence the allegations. upon which the request for postconviction relief is based)~ · · ·

§ 15:33 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under · Idaho C~de §§ 19-4901 to·l9·4911-Appeal~

The final judgment entered in· a proceeding under the Idaho UPCPA may be r~viewed by the Idaho Supreme Court on appeal by either the· applicant or the state, provided the appeal is brought within 42 days from the entry of'the j~dgment. Idaho Code § 19-4909; see also Rule ll(a)(l), Idaho App. R. (appeal to Idaho Supreme Court from ·final judgment in civil· case); Rule 14(a), Idaho App. R. (when appeal is ·made from district court,to state su:prem~ court from final civil judgment, notice of appeal must be filed with clerk of district coUrt within 42 days from date of entry. ·of j~dgment). However, under Idaho Code § 1-2406(1) ~nd Rule )08, Idaho App. R., the Idaho .Supreme Court has authority to assign appeals (including appeals in UPCPA cases) to the Idaho Court of Appeals, and· the Idaho Supreme Court frequently exercises this authority with. respect to UPCPA app~a~s. · · ·

32

IDAHO § 15:34

§' 15:34 Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under Idaho Code 1§§ 19-4901 ·to · 19-4911-Appeals--Oase law ..

·For case 18.w on appeals under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, see e.g., Hayes v. State, 143 Idaho 88, 137 P.3d 475 '(Ct. App. 2006) (Hayes a8ks us to consider his appeal timely even though his original notice of appeal was, he claims, losf in the mail and therefore n~t physically received by the clerk of the district court within 42 days after the district court's dismissal order as f~quired by Idaho Appellate Rules 14(a) and 20, Idaho App. R.; .J:iayes is an inmate. incarcert\lted under .the supervision of the Idaho Department of. Correction;· in support of his "lost in the mail" assertion, he has_ provided this court with evidence that he did in fact place his notice of appeal in the prison mail system prior to the deadline; Rule 14(a), ldah'.o App. R., specifies th~t a notice of appeal must' be ~led with the clerk of th~ district.· court within -42 days from the date evidenced by the filing ~tamp of the clerk of the court on any appealable judg'Il1-ent, order: or decree, and under Rule 20, Idaho App. R., a notice of appeal is ndt deemed filed until it is physically r~ceived' by the clerk _of the district. court; but Idaho courts have . recognized that ,pro se inmates ·cannot entirely control when their documents are ·mailed or delivered to the court clerk because th.ey do not have direct ac­c~ss to· the postal service and .mti~t rely· oil 'prison officials to' do the actual. mailing; our courts' therefore 'follow t~e mailbox' rrile tinder which prose imµa~s' documents are.considered to be filed whe'n" they are delivered to prison authorities . for the purpose of inailirig ·to the court clerk; here, the evidence ·sufficiently demonstrates that Hayes t~ely filed his notice of appeal; :a peti­tion for postconviction 'relief is an appropriate mechanism for considering· claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; like a plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant must prove by a prepon­derance of evidence the a~legations upon ·which· the request·for postconviCtion. relief :is based; a district court may summarily dismiss a postconviction petition if it fails to·frame:a genuine.is­sue of material fact which, if resolved iri the· petitioner's favor., would ·entitle the petitioner to the ·requested relief; if such a factual issue is pre'sented; an evid'entiary hearfog must· be conducted; summary dismissal of a petition may-be appropriate even where the state does.· not controvert the petitioner's evidence because·the court is not required to ·accept either the petitioner's mere conclusory allegations, unsupported by admissible evidence, or the· petitioner's conclusions of· law; we reverse the summary dismissal of Hayes's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel based ·upon, Hayes's alleged lack of ·notice of the possibility of restitution',prior to pleading·;guilty and :remand for further

33

§~16:34 S'l'ATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

proceedings); Martinez. ·v. State, 143· Idaho 789, 152 P .3d 1237 (Ct. App. 2007) (on review ofa~ dismissal of a postconviction relief ·application without an evidentiary hearing, we determine whether a .genuine issue of fact exists based on the pleaqmgs, .pe­posi tioris and a4mis~ions. togeth~r with_ any affid~vits o_µ. file; moreov~r,. the . court liberally construes ~he facts and reasonable infe~ences in fa~or, of the nQnmoving party; here, there: was a gem;ain~. issue of .material fact; evidep.tiary .hearing ordered)..'. . , ..

- .

§.15:35:- Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act under, . Idaho Code §§ 19.-4901 to 19.-4911-Death . . . .

·. - sentences-Idaho Code:_§ 19-2719

· Idaho C,ode. § 19-2719 provi~e~{special rules for UPG~A proceedings filed. in beh.alf qf d~Bith row inmates. ld.aho Code

· § 19-27~~ · estabUshes ,with re~pect· to .the· UPCPA "an e~pedited and short~ned p;roc~ss for capital c~ses." McKirJ.ney v.· Pas~e.tt, 75.3 F. Supp.;~,8~1; ,8~~65 (D. · Jdaho ,1990). ~~ated ·.differently,, .in q~ath s~ntence cases.the UPCPA i$ mqdified.by § 19-2719 to .the e~e~t th~te ~S .. a .co~ct ·~e~een: the tWo, but .i:t;i othe~ respects the tJJ>CPA continues to .govern postconviction· proc~eding~ fµed by-Iqaho de.~tb..row inmates·. See; ·e.g., Sivak v. State, 134 Idaho 6~1, 8 :P.3d 636 (2000) (ill capital cases, p,ostc~nviction~ proceed".' ing~ are primarily gov~rn,edby Id8.l19 ·code.§ 19-2719; ·w~ere §. 197 2719 is,,sile:Q.t, the.ldaho UPCPA {IdahQ Code§ 19-4901 through ~ ~9.-4911) app~~~s). · . '.< • • · . : • • '. ~ ·.:

i The : prqv~sioi1s 'of lqajio Cod~. § 19-~2719 apply to all. c~se~I- in which capital.senten~s 'Yere impo~ed on Qr prior to Apr. 2, i\984 but w,!tjc~ 1have i;io.t been.carried qµt, ~nd to.all.capital ~ases aris­h1g after Ap~. 2,, 19~~.Idaho Code § 19-2719a. . . · . · · . . . : r

The most.important.provisions of Idaho Code.§ 19-2719 may be s.umm~rized; as fo~lows: .(1) any ~~medy involving postconvictio~ proce.dwe or habeas corpus must b~. fil~d within 42 days after the filing by; the convicting court of the judgment impo.sing the de.atb penalty;; (2).if .a. poetcop.victit>n challenge is· made under §-il9-2719, questions raised the:rebyshall be heard and.decided by the district corirt within :90 days of the filing of. the timelyiJlled ·D)O.­

tion or petition, and this .. 90 .day time limit.may be extended only in extraordinary !circumstances; (3) severe .restrictions are imposed on successive: applications fo~ ,postconviction .. relief by the s·ame, :person ·in death, sentence cases; .(4) the provisions of the Idaho, postconvict~on D.NA .tea.ting. statute (Idaho Code § .19: 4901(a)(6), Idaho Code §. 194209.(b), to. (f)). are fully. appli~able in capital cases .and .~e subj~cp to. the procedures set forth in this section,\.and must be.·pursued within_42 days.~ th~ .filing by the convi,cting qourt of, the judgment imposing th~ death .penalty

a4

IDAHO §.15:36

or by .July: 1, 2002, whi$eyer is later; !and (5). in the event the defendant desires to appeal from any postconviction order.entered pursuant1to § 19-2719, the,appealmust be part of· any direct ap­,peal from the. conviction ,or: sentence, any .and aU issues relating to conviction and sentence· and :the .postconviction challenge shall be considered in the same appellate. proceeding.· .. l

~ ; : ·I • • ·_ , ' ~- • . •' • '. • : • ' v . ' : . I : • ! ~ .

§ 15:36 Uniform Post.·.ConViction.Proced~e Aet under . _Idaho co<t.:.o· lfJ:-190~ _to .. ~9~~011~Deat~ .. . sep.t~nce~I~.ito,Co_de ~ 19-2719:-Te~, ... ·

, Idaho Code § '19-2719 provides: -. ·, · > · · · ·'.. '; ·:·'. : · ; · , \ ' : ' (. , ' . '--:,' •'. • : ' ~ '. ;' I :, \ \ 1 '. i ~- :°, :. .- ' I .. ~. '. j > - ' ~ ; t f., • ;; I - • :

.. ~: 19~~71.~.; , Sp1eci~ ,aP,pell-.t~ ~d .P.~stc~n~~tion, proce· . . <l~e·fo~.capit~!c~ses~A1,1~~atic stay •.

. The fallowing sp,ecial ·procedures shall be ·interpreted to ac­complish the purpose of eliminating unnecessary delay· in car-

. rying OUt a Valid .death Sentence~. : . · , ~I (1) When the punishment of death is imposed the.time for

· filing an·appeal shall :begin:to run when the: death ·warrant is ; filed .. · '•' ; : ' ' .' •' : '• 4 • • : I ' ' • I' ; I , • '. !

. . . . '. ~· · . '(~)' The ~eath_ warraii~ shaU np,t be file'd until fdrty-two

. (42) days. af~e;r the jµdgmetj.t in,ipo.sing· ~lie d~athr sentence has. been fileq,. or; (in the everit? a p'os#!onvibtfo~ chB.llenge to the; conviction or senteqce. is ;file'd, ·until· the order deciding such .. pqst'conVictfon cllhllengiqEf filed. · · · · ~. .. : ·

C3> . within. rorfy-~t.wt>. c4~y <ik:Ys: of the 'fi.iing of th'e judgment '' imposing the purushment 'df· death, and before the !de·ath war­

.. ·'dm,t'j$' filed,1 ·the defenditnt1 .. ln:ust' file 'any 'l~gal or factual ., . · · : chalWnge 'to the seritence1or~ bci'nViction: that is known or rea­; sonably·shou'ld be ·kno"\Vn~ The'Cleferidan'.t niust file ·any claims ... i of ineffective r asSistance of a~pellate cbunsel within forty-two

(42) days of the Idaho supreme court issuiiig·the final· remit­i • 1 titur 'in the >unified appeal ·from which rm further·.proceedings · · , except :issuance of:a death :warr~t are ordered. ·; .. , . ~ · ... ·

. ·' (4): ~y remedy: av:ailaole by·postconViction-procedure, ha­: beas::corpus or Einy 1 othe~· provision of1 ·State law must be pursued acc~rdirig to the"procedrires .. set 'forth 1fn. this section ·and· '.within: the· ti'me- limitations· of subsectiOn · (3) ·of this s~ct~on. The· special proced~res for fingerprint or fotensic

'··DNA testing ·set forth 'in ·ae~tfons 19~490l(a)(6}· and 19-. · • "4902(~): through (g), Idahb Co.de~ '-lire "fully· applicable in i n. capital cases and are'-subject'. to''.the· procedures set forth in

this ··section,· and must be~ pursued' tlirough ·a petition filed· within the time limitations of subsection (3).of-this· section or by Jnly 1,:2002, whichever ,is -later,, . .,

35

§ 15:36 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

' (5} If the defendant fails to apply for relief. as provided in ·this section and·within the time· limits· specified, he.shall, be · deemed to have waived such ·claims for relief as wer-e .known, or reasonably should have been· known. The courts· of Idaho shall have no ·power to ·.consider· any such claims· for relief as ~ave been so waived or gr.ant any such relief., · ·

(a) An allegation that a .successiv~ postconviction peti­tion may be heard because Qf th:e applicability of the· excep­tion herein· for issues that ~were not 'known or' could not reasonably have been known shall· not be considered un­less the applicant shows the existeµce of such. issu~s .by (i) a precise statement of the issue or issues asserted. together with (ii) material facts 'stated under oath 6r affirmation by credible persons With first-hand knowledge that vrould sup­port the issue or issues asserted. A .pleading that fails to make a showing of excepted issues. supported by material facts, or which is not credible; ·must be sµmmarily dis~&sed. . . . . . ; ..

(b) A successive postconviction. pleading, asserting the exception shall be deemed facially insufficient to the extent it alleges matters that are cumulative or. impeaching or . would not, even if .the allegations were t:rue, cast doubt on the' reliability of the conviction ~r sentence. . · .· (c) A succes~ive postconvi~tion. pleading asserting the exception shall be de~med.facially insufficient to the extent it seeks retroactive application ~f new ·ru1~s o! law. . · (6) In th~ event the qefendant desires to. appeal from any

postconviction o~der ~ntered purs~ant to this sectio~, his ap­peal must be. part of any ,~pp.~al ~~en from the. conviction or

. sentence. All iSS\10S. relating to conviction, sen~.ri.ee ~d post-. conviction. cha~l~nge shall ~l>~ con.sjdered in the ~aine ·~ppel-

late pr.oceeding. . (7·) If postconviction challenge is ,made, under. this section,

questions· raised thereby. shall· be heard and ·decided by the district court within ninety (90) days of the filing .of any mo­.tion or petjtion for relief timely filed as p:r;-oyided by this section. The·~ourt shall.giv.e f\rst;priotj.ty to capital cases. In the event the district coµrt fails to act within the time. speci­fied, .the supreme _court of .Idaho . shall, .on its own,. motion or the motion of .ari.y p~y, order the ·court to proceed forthwith,

. or if appropriate, r~assign the case. to anQther. judge. When the supreme court intervenes as provjd~d, it.shall .set area­soµable ~time limit for disposition. Qf the issu~s Qefore the

. district court . .,., .. i. ,., . , .

(8) The time limit provided in subsection'(7) ofthis se·ction

IDAHO § 15:87

for disposition of ppstconviction claims may be extended only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances which would make it impossible to fairly consider defendant's claims in the time provided. Such showing must be made under oath and the district court's finding that extraordinary circum-

; rstances exist for extending the time shall be in writing and shall be immediately reponed to· the supreme. court, wlzj.ch shall at once independently consider, the sufficiency of the circumstances shown and. determine whether an extension of time is warranted. · ·

(9) When a judgment imposing the penalty of death is filed, the clerk and the !reporter shall begin preparation of the transcripts of-the trial, and other proceedings, and the clerk's transcript.· · · · .·:

(10) When the procedm.es speci:fied·in this section and sec­.' tion.19-2827, Idaho Code,.have been carried out-and a remit­

,. titur issued, and an execution date· set as provided by law, · the :defendant shall be deemed to have eXhausted all state remedies. ; r •

(ll) Any. successive petiti~p for, postcoriviction 're.lief not within the exception o~ sl1p$ection (5) of this section shall be

.. dismissed summatjl)i.-.N,otwithstanding ·any othei;- statute or :. · . ~e, the order of dismissal shall not be subject to any motfon · · .·, .' · to alter,. ~end. or recqnsider. Such order shall not be subject·

to· ~ny . require~ent for the. giving. of notice of ·the court's intent to dismiss. The order of dismissal shall not be appeal~ble~ · · · · .

. <12). A st~y of. exe~utiol:l _while tlie: ~pecial. ~ppellate -.procedures specified herein ar~. followed and _during the p~ndency of automatic review of :death sentences. shall. be aµtomatically entered by. the clerk of .the suprem~ court. at the time the district .court transmits to ·the. sup:r;eme court the report.requir~d by .. section ~1!!~2827, Idaho Cod~.-1(.the sentence is upheld, the clerk. shall dissolve such stay :when the remittitµr is fjled. Thereafter .t~ district court shall set a new execution date. . ·

- : '

§ 15:37 Uniform P~st-Co~vi~tfon Proced~e Act' under ·Idaho Code §§ 19-4901' to 19.4911~beath . · sentencea:-Idaho Code § 1~-27.19-C.a~~ law

For case law involVing·either the. 42 day.statute of limitations on filing. postconviction -petitions in. death· sentence: cases or other proVi.sions: of § 19-2719, see, e.g.',- Dunlap v. :state·,. 159 Idaho 280, 360 P.3d 289 (2015} (whether a 1 successive· 1petitfon for post-

37

§"16:37 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND REUEF

conviction: relief in, a ·capital _case ·was-.. properly. dismissed as untimel~ .is a question of law; when·. reviewing a ·dismissal based on Idaho Code § 19-2719, the, proper standard of review the Court

· should utilize_ is -to 'directly ·.address the motio.n, .. determine whether or; not the requirem~nts of§ 19-2719 have been met, and rule ~accordingly;"§ 19-2719 provides a series of procedural requirements for post-conviction petitions in capital ·cases and these provisions supersede the UPCPA ·to . the extent that any conflict exists·; § ·19-2719 provides that'if· a defendant fails to timely apply for post-conviction relief, the defendant has waived such claims for .. reU.ef as were known, .. or r.eas~µably1should have been . known. and _the courts of Idaho· shall have : no. power to consider any such .claims· for relief as have, be~ so· waived; there is one exception: "a successive post-conviction petition may be heard . . . . .for. issµes . tha,t. were not known or coajd ·not reason­ably }?.ave. been .~o~n" witJlin forty~two d:ay~ of

1

the, judgment; eyen'iµ ~ucli ·cas,es;·cl~mS,.mus~·,he .a~e;e~eq wit!µ!} a rea.e~nable time af.ter .t~ey Eir~ known or re.asq~ably could h~v~. bee.1:11¥1own; § 19-2719 places a heightened brirden on petitioners to .make a prima facie show~ng tha~ t~e issues ra~~ed after the forty-two day time period. were i not known. or could riot. reasonably have been known; ;pet.itioner must' rai~e any newly ·'discovered'. issµ~s within a reasonable tiine); Fields: ·v>.$Jat~, ·155Jdaho · 532, · 31'4 '.P.3d 587 (201S)'(defendailt is _deemed to have-waived· any post-conviction cla'.ims· if he or ·sh~ tails to apply _for r~slief withiA ~he st_awtory time1 limits,, an~ colirts shall hBsve no power .to corlsider ~~i"such clainls for :relief as have· been so waived; whether· a ~uccessive pe­titioJ;l. for pos~-conviction relief wa~ properly dismissed is 'ii ques­tion of Jaw; Supreme iCourt ·strictly construes the waiver provi­sion of- statute creating. special post~convictiOn procedures for

·capital ·cases; for ·successive post;;.conviction· ·p·etitioµs· in· capital cases~· petitioners ha'.ve a: heightened· burden to· make' a ·prima faci~ showi~g th~t th¢ iss\1-es· raised· after the 42 day time period were.- not I known\ or •. cou~(l l not• reasona~ly have been known; peti~ioner seeking·. r~lie~ ·in · succes~ive post~con~i'ctiori · petition must raise \newly discovered issues within a reasonable time; rea­sonable time for filing a successive petition fol" ·post-conviction relief is 42 days after the petitioner knew or reasonably should have kpown of the claim, l;lnless the petitioner shows ~hat·t~ere were extraordirii:try" ·cir,cii~stan.~~~- that•. '.prevented· !iim or. her from filing .the· claini .'WitlliP .,that ;time period;· capital defendant waived claims·raise·d in'·si.icc~ssive postconvictioh petition, where the petition ~and its .. accompanying. elWibits £ailed. to show that he filed his petition :w:ithln. 42 days ·after -he knew and re~sonably should have. knQwn .. :of his. -claims);< Fields· v~. State,. 154; Idaho 347, 298 P.3d 241 (2018}·(§~19-,2719 places a height.ened .. burden·on

38

I

I IDAH0 1 § 16:87

petitioners to make 'a prima facie showing that the issues. raised after the 142 ·day time •period we're ·not:ltnown ·or could not reason~' ably have· ·been known; in addition to· the prima .. facie showing, the claims must. be raised·~thin-a reasonable time" after they become:.known ·or reasonably co.uld have· become known;· any peti­tion for post•conviction relief that fails to 1meet1the above require­ments· must\ be .summarily· dismissed);1 State v~ Shackelford; :laO Idaho·355;,247 P.Sd ·582 (2010)' (death sentence case; §"19•27.19 provides St series- of proceduntl· ·requirements for postconvictien petitions in capital .cases;· these ;provisions supersede ·the· UPCPA to the e~nt that· any conflict ·eXists; ·of particular. import· are· the strict time bars; in addition .. toJ.the :expijcit limitations of I.C. §··19~ 2719, the Supreme Court has.also.implied a "timeliness'~ require­ment; claims not known ;or which ·could- not have .reasonably been known· within· 42 days· of judglJlerit, must· be, asserted within a reasonable. time after: they; are knowQ. or reasonably·could have been known; clairils not -raised within that reasonable· time; like claims· that should' have ·been 'known. but were. not raised, are deemed. to be waived; petitioner· bringing .a successive petiµon for

. postconViction relief h~s a·heightened :burden and·_must.make-~ prima facie showing that issues raised in that petition fit within the· narrow exce:ption. provided :by the statute; where a 'Claim is brotight that alleges· that· a. claim· could ~not reasonably be known within the forty.two day periad prescribed by ~i.e. :§, 19 .. 2,719(5), the· :court:.reviews .the·:allegatioris in.; a successive petition to determine whethe'r-'.claiins·.wereJmown or reasonably·should have been :known! within·: statutory· time limits; if ·such, claims. are barred, mo appeal ·on· the. merits· will-be heard; 1 an;d ·the ·successive petition is dismissed);~Pizzuto· v.· State, 149.Jdaho 155~ ·288 P.8d 86i(2010l (in.capital ~ases,~ a:-successive-petition is•allowed only where the petitioner•cah' .. deµionstrate that'- the issues raised were not-,knowri.. 6r could. not rea'sqnably :have been known within ,the forty-tw.o. day .time frame;.capitalmurder defendant's claim in- his sixth petition •for postconviction ·relief that .prosecutrir ~omntltted misconduct .by~ entering·' intoJ secret· plea agreeme·:nt with' co­defendant,: w~o 1testified agajnst ·defendant . at trial,- was: barred, as· defendant failed to make a~prima facie.shoWing.that claim-was not ·known .. or· ·could not: ,reasonably· have· been ·known· when defendoot. filed hisi-fiist :postconViction,petition); Btate v~~.Payne-, 146· :Idaho 548, 199 P.3d · 123 (2068). (we: have :previously: ·consid~ ered :and rejected anguments that the idisparate -treatment ·of. capital. defendants .. under: I.C .. § ·19-27.19 ·violates· their .. eq:µal protection, ~d due:process rights; in: :State ·v. Beam,. :115 Idaho 208, 766 P.2d 678 (1988),. this: Court held that the 42-day time limit imposed: on_tcapital defendants. survived ·rational basis re:v.iewi and did ~ot-v.iolate a .defeq.dant's ·constitutional righ~ to

89

§ 15:37 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

equal protection; in Rhoades, the. Court approved Beam's equal protection analysis and addressed a due process challenge to the statute's 42-day time limit,. State v. ·Rhoades, .120 Idaho 795~ 820 P.2d 665 (1991); theJegislature .has seen fit to appropriately limit the time frame within which to bring challenges which are known or which reasonably should be known; I.C. § 19-2719 is not un­constitutional under due process analysis); Dunlap v .. State, 146 Idaho 197, 192 P.3d 1021(2008) (trial court lacked authority to consider claims in defendant's successiv:e petition for· postconvic­tion relief,. challenging his original.guilty.plea, ·under the ·statute governing postconviction proceedings in .capital cases, given that facts surrounding the original guilty plea were. known at time defendant's ·original petition for postconviction relief was filed); Pizzuto v. State, 146: Idaho 720, 202 P.3d 642 (2008) (defendant who filed successive petition for. postconviction relief, challenging his death sentence on the ground that he was mentally ·retarded, was not required to file his petition for postconviction relief within 42 days of when· the United States Supreme .Court released its opinion in Atkins v. Virginia., which held the Eighth Amendment prohibited imposition of death sentence upon offenders who were mentally retarded at the time of their. cri;me;. defendant w.as required to bring his claim within a reasonable .time after it was known or reasonably should have been ·known, which was after the State enacted appropriate procedures to implement Atkins; whether a successive .petition for postconviction relief-in a capital case has been filed within a reasonable·· time after .the claim was known or knowable, the reasonable time at issue ds the time nec­essary to develOp sufficient facts to file ;the postconviction pr.oceed• -ing, not the time necessary to develop all facts that will be" of­fered in an attempt to prove the claim); Charboneau v. State, 144 Idaho 900, 174 P.3d 870 ·(2007) (capital defendant may bring claims in successive postconviction petitions ,that he did not· know or could not reasonably have known so long as those claims are brought within a reasonable time); Porter v. State, J.40 Idaho 780, 102 P .3d 1099 (2004) (Idaho Gode § 19-2719(5) provides that a petitioner bringing a. ;successive application for. postconviction relief must show ·that he .or she.Qid not know,' and reasonably should not have known, 'Of the claim alleged in the successive .ap­plication; in addition, Idaho .Code § 19-27.19(5)(c) provides: "A successive postconviction pleading asserting the exception shall · be deemed. facially i.µsufficient to the extent it' seeks retroactive application of·new rules of law; this is. an ·appeal from an order granting the petitioner postconviction relief based upon the retro­active application. of Ring v.·Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, ·122· S. Ct. 2428, 153 L. Ed. 2d · 556 (2002); because that decision of the U ~. S. Supreme Court is not to be applied retroactively, we reverse the

40

IDAHO § 15:37

order of the district court); Porter v. State, 139 Idaho 420, 80 P.3d 1P21 · (2003} (procedure for postconviction review in capital cases is contained in· ~dah<;> Code § 19-2719; we have repeawdly upheld the coQstitutionality .q(. ~ _ 19-2719; t~e .. statute provides the defendant with one 9pp.ortunity to. raise all challenges to the ,con1(iction and sentence ill a ;petition for· postconviction relief, e~cep~Jn thqse ~usual cases where it can be:demonstrated that t~e issues were ~ot known and rea~onably should not' hav~ been known within the time frame allowed by the statute; a claiin that reaso'nably' shoul<l: be known h.nmediat~~y upo~ ~he completion of .the tria:l js deemed waived Wit is not raised in the first postcon­victiOn petition; § · 19·-2719· provides a ·capital defendant one op­portunity to raise all challenges to a conviction and sentence in a petition· for· postcorlvictiO~ ·relief _unless it can ·be demonstrated that daiip.~r raised· 'in a successive petition were not known and reasonably should not :have· ·been known within 42 days of the entry of the .. judgment of co11:viction; a: 'petitioner bringing a suc­cessive petition for postconviction relief has a heightened-. burden and must make a prima facie showing that issues raised in that petition fit within the narrow exception provided by § 19-2719(5); a successive petition for postconviction relief that is not within the exception of§ 19-2719(5) shall be dismissed summarily); State v. LePage, 138 Ida~o 803, 69 P.3d _ 1Q64 (Ct. App. 2003) (claim of newly discovered evidence· based on 'newly. discovered DNA evi­dence; an application for postconviction relief initiates a proceed­ing .whicq is civil in nature; summary dismissal of an application for postcqnviction .relief pursuant to Idaho Code · § 19-4906 is the procedural equivalent of summary judgment under Rule 56, Idaho R. Civ. Proc.; § 19-4906. authorizes summary disposition of an ap­plication for, postconviction relief, either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the court's own initia,tive; .summary dismissal is permissible only whep. the applicant's eyidence has raised no geA­uip.e issue of.material fact which, if resolved in the applicant's favor, wo:uld entitle the applicant to the requested relief; if such a factual issue· is: p~esented, ah~· ev1dentiary hearing ~ust be conducted; sunimacy disinissal of an application for• postconvic­t:fon relief 'may be appropriate, however, even where the ·state ddes not controvert the applicant's evidence because the court· is not required to accept either the applicant's mere conclusocy al.:. legations,- unsupported. by admissible evidence,. or the applicant's conclusions· of law; like a . plaintiff in a civil action, the· applicant for postconviction relief must prove by a preponderance of evi­. dence the allegations upon which· the request for postconviction relief is. based;· an 'application for postconviction relief must be verified with respect to .facts within ·the personal knowledge of the applicant, and affidavits,. records·-.or other evidence support-

41

§ 16:37 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

ing ·its allegations must be. attached; 1 or the· application must state why such supporting•eVigence··is·not included With the'·S:p~ plication;· Idaho Code § 19-490;3; ·in other words,- the·. applicatio,rt must pr~sent pr be accompanied ,by admissible 'evjdenc~ suppi)itl­fug. its allegations, or th~ ipplication 'will be subject to dishiissai.; although the· Idaho Rul~s'" of Civil Procedtire ·generally appl:f to P'.l"Qceedings · on·· ~n. appli~·atio~ .ro~· po~tQoriv.ictfo# r~~ief ;. ··'tli~ dis.coyecy proVisiori.s· contained in those ruleEfare. no~; jipplfcable ~less speci1fcally order~q.~y the ·clourt, Rule. 57(b),; Idt$o G~. R:.;' discovei:y dUring postconv!ctio~ r~lief proceedings is ·a. matter put. to :the ·.sound dlscretjon of the dis#ict court; 'unle$,s .n~ce~~.fil.Y to protect ·an appli~~t's substantial. rights,, the. distijct cQurl. js not reqliired .to order. discovery; in .'order to. be' gi.ari,ted discqV,ery:,

; • , ' ' • . ~ , • -• . J , • I ' . j

a postc.onviction appJican~. mus~ i~enµfy the. specific' s~pj~ct mat:-ter where. di~covery is requested and why. disco.very as. ·to. ~p.qse matters ;is necessary -to; his. Af. li.e~, application;. because it was rejected: on direct: appeal, petitioner's ineffective CQUDS.el. claim is barred by, res judicata).

'. '' ,.

§ .15:38 .Writ ~f habeas cori)us und~r ;Idaho: Code '§§ 19-: • t 4201 to-19-4226 •·I~!. 0 "; • ' J ,_:·' • '

':. ~other.Idaho_ postconvict~~n ;r~iµe~y ~~· ha~e~s c~rpus ... . :-. Under the state constitutfon, the . Idaho Supreme··:Court. has

· original jurisdiction . to ·entertain· habeas corpus petitions. Idaho Const .. art. 5, §. 9; ·see also Idaho Code, § 1·203 (original jurisdic~ tion ·of: Idaho· Supreme Cour.t ~xtends to issuance· of Writs of.ha­beas corpus); Rule· 43(b), (c),'. Idaho App .. R'. (regulating habeas corpus· petitions filed: originally in ·Idaho·. Supreme Court). : · The· :Writ' of habeas· corpus is· statutorily authonzed by Chapter

· 42 of Title '19 of the· Idaho Code (Idaho· Code ·§ 19-4201 through § 19--4226)..Chapter)·42 was supstantially' revised in 1999 an<j renamed the "Idaho Habeas Corj)us .~and Iristitutfonal 'Litigation Proc.~dures Act." It was 'further. am~Iided' in ?009.

1 • · .. ·_.:": , :

.·Th.~ writ.o(hab~a~ corpusJ~.~ CO;tl$titu.tiqpally maiidated m~~h~ anis~. to effect the discharge _o~ ~ .~ndi'.vidµal ft-pm . unl~wfuJ confinement .. Th~ essence.of.habeas corpus.js an attac~ µpon tjie legality ,of.a person's detention. for the purpose o( s.ecurjng relea.se where ... crustody is -illegal. The writ is ._an ~venue .. by .which relief can be sought where~ detention of an indiVidual is in violation of a fundamental.right. It.may be 1 used to .challenge!th.e .revocation of parole or~ the violation of a· parolee's ; constitutional· rights· during the cour~e of parole revocatit>n proceedings. Matthews,!v. Jones, 147.Idaho 224, 207 P~3d 200.(Ct. App~·2009). ::;.; ... ·

42

IDAHO · , §''15:40

§·-15:39. '..Writ·of1habeas.corpus under Idaho Code §§ 19· .. 4201 to 19-4226-Provisions . ;1 · r

: ··The 'mot~ µllp'ortant provisions of- the Idaho Hab'eas Corpus and Institutional ~it~ga~on ·Pr6.ced1:11"es Act conperning· habeas corpus actions filed· in· behalf of. prisoners convicted· ih' an Idaho court may. be summarized as follows.

Under Id·~ho Code··§ 19~4202 original jlµisdictfon to consider an application for a writ of~habe·as corpmds~vested in'both (1) the I~a!1o,~upr~~e CoW1, .~qq!C?) ~he~!ll~mct c9urt ;0f.the ~ounty in whiqh tq.e habea~ p~tiqpneir,1s.de~~ed.,See.a}sp I<:{ahq Cod~ §.i~ ~05 ( qi~F~c~ . c<)ur_~: h~s origijla~ ,j ~~sgi~t\~#·. jn. all c~se~. ~nd

. proceedings in th~ ~s.suance Qf wnts hab,e~s ~oxpµ,s). , . . . l ',I#·· j !·,•·...__' ,_ l _ . \I \' ,• 'I. • ,

Under the Idaho. Habeas Corpus and Institutional Litigation Procedur~E? A.ct, a, c~µyicted ~p_tj~q~~r. ~s .pei;mltte,~ Ff'" apply, ~or ~ writ of habeas corpus to inqtµr~ ~~<utate or. fed~~i;il iC~D$titutional questio~s concerning: (1) conditions ·of confinement; -(2) revocation· of.-parole; .. (3) miscalculation of the perso·n's sentence; (4) loss of good tirlie~ credits;"-or: (5) ·a detainer lodged a:gainst the :person. Idaho•Oode~.§:~19-4203(2). Habeas· corpus may··not.be' used;as a substitute for ·a direct appeal, the.UPCPA, or Rule' 35 of the Idaho Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the statutes of limitations imposed :the~ein., Id~ho Code § 19:-:4903( ~). The. writ o(.hageas corpusJs: not '.~ statutory~ r~~dy .but .~ather. a remedy i:~~Qg'Qizec).

. and protected by Article I, Sectio:q ... g, of,.the, Jdaho Constitu~ion. The legislature, absent certain contingencies, is without power to abridg~ .. ~µi~ ~e1JlecJy. e..e.c~ed JJyL ~~..Jdaho Constitution, but. may

. add to the efficacy of the writ~,~ ~·an ~xtraor<U11ary remedy, the writ o(hf;ibeas corpus is not ~ubject to the.rules of technical.plead­fng 'ndr''it:s; s~ft; relisf1hindered' by'captious 1objectio~s or' fine spun theories: df' procediire; and a ]ietition· therefore 'will not be scrutillized With technical~nicetyi.i Habea'.s ·corpus~ statutes ·shoUld be ·construed so as to promote ;the effectiveness of the 'Proceeding·. Hoots v. Craven, 146 Idaho 271;:192 P.Sd--1095-(Ct.:App.;2008). ·:

I : '; t .J '. '~(,I i 4~' '

. .

§, 15:4Q· ·_.•!Writ of habeas eorpus under Idaho Code:§§: 19-4201to19422~Filing ·~'.: ·- 1 .<. > .L _

;·:Petitions· for· a· writ: of habeas· corpus iri. behalf· of· convicted prisoners ·shall· be ·filed_. "in·. tlie· district- court ·of' the, county in which the prisoner claims his -eoniinement· or: ·aspects ·of' his confine.ment violate.q;>rovisions: 0£ t:he.,state·· or ·:federal constitutions~" Idaho Code· §.19-4205(1).: · -· 'Unless the convicted. person< ·establishes! ·to· .the'. 1satisfaction of the court that.he is in imminent danger of ,aerious physieal injury, no petition fo~ a writ .of habeas :corpµs raising· c~s ·with respect to the conditions of confinement shall ·be brought: uhless ,aJ.l ·avail'-

43

.§ 15:40 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

·able adniinistrative remedies have been .exhausted .. Idaho Code § 19-4206(1). . . .. " ; ' .... . UD:Iess. t~e ~onvicted person is in~apacit~~ed,. .only: th~ ;convicted

person or his a~tomey may file. a. habe~s corpµs ~ petjt~pn in behalf of the ~onvicted person. Idaho CoP,e § 19~4207; ... : ...

t ' ~

§ 15:41 Writ of habeas corpus un4e~ Idaho· Code §§ 19-.. 4201 to 19-422~Civil acti9ns ..

· Habeas corpus proc~ediilgs in .Idaho are civil actions and governe~ by the Idaho court rules· except to the extent those rules are inconsistent wit~ the· Idahp Habeas Corpus ·and Institution~~J Litigation Procedlires 4ct. Idaho Code § 19-4208. . · ·

·-· .

·§ 15:42. Writ of llabeas corpus tinder· Idaho Code §§ 19- · · · · 4201 to l9-422~Discov.ery ·. · !' ·· · • · ·

1

• '-r : ' •, I • ' _• / • ' •,

The procedures governing habeas corpus proceedings .. in,behalf of con~cted p~~sons ar.e set forth- in Idaho. Code. § · 19-4209..

Subject to several limited exceptions, discovery is· generally not permitted in Idaho habeas corpus proc~edings. Idaho. Code.§ 19-4210~ . '

-Idaho· Code § 19-4213 ·provides for: appropriate relief for a convicted· persons whose constitutional rights ·were violated in parole revocation ·proc~edings. · · ·

...

§ 15:43 Writ ~f llabeas corpus:~der Idaho Code §§ 19-4201 to··t9-4226-Relief' ·· ···. ·: t\ • · ;.

~daho Code_. ~ 1~-42i4 provides': fQ;_;. appropri~t~ r~lie(.for a convicted per~on .whose se~te11:ce was mis.cal~~at~d. , , , . .

.Idaho -Code § 19-4215 provides 1for .. appropriate relief for ·a convicted person who has lost good time credits as a result. of a constitutional due process violation. : . ' ' . . r • : ~ ·- • ;

Idaho Code § 19-4216 provides for appropriate relief for a convicted person whose has successfully challenged the legality of a detruner lodged against him by another state. · ·

.Id_ahQ Code.§ 19-4217 regulates appropri~te injunctive relief for a convicted person whose constitutional rights. have been vi9lat~.d by his ¢ondi#ons of confineroeQ.t. . . , .

Under -Idaho Code · § 19-4224, the. Idaho Habeas Corpus· and Institutional Litigation Procedures Act sets forth 'the exclusive procedures and·.remedies·in habeas corpus proceedings in I4abo~

. Idaho Code § 12-122, requires the award of attorney fees to the respondent in any. habeas ·corp:us action.brought by a jail or prison inmate if the action: is frivofous.. . · . · · · · ' : ·

44

IDAHO § 15:44

§ 15:44 ···Writ of habeas corpus. under. Idaho Code §§ 19· , 4201 to·19.;~2fh.Appeals ... ·. ·, 1i·· · "· ·

A district court's final judgment or-order!grariting'.or ·denying postcdnviction habeas corpus relief·in Idaho 'is' ·appealable· to the Idaho Supreme Cohtt "linder Rule ll(a)(l), Idaho App .. R.,·which authorizes· appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court.. from final judg­meiits· and orders in· civil cases. However, under1 Idaho Code §· 1-2406(1) and ·Rule: 108, Idaho: App. R., the Idaho Supreme Cou~ has·aµthority to:. assign' appeals' (including appe'als in habeas corpus cases) to' the Idaho Court of Appeals, and the Idaho Supreme· Court i.freque:ritly exerci~es this 'authority with respect to habeas',~orpus·appe.ais. The' notice of appeal ~u·st be filed with the clerk of the district· court within 42 days from the date of the filing of the judgment or order.· Rule 14(a), Idaho App. R. ·Warren v. Craven, 152 Idaho· 327, 271 P.3d 725 (Ct~ App~ 2012) (when· an exercise of discretion . in' a habeas· ·corJ)us pro~eding is reviewed, a three-tiered inquiry .is conducted to determfoe whether the lower court (1)' rightly perceived tlie' issue as one of discretion,' (2) acted· within the outer bound~es of such discretion and consis- . teiitly with 'any legal standards applicable to specific choices,. and (3) re~ched its decision py an exercise of reasop; if a petitione~ is not entitled tp relief on a petition for a ;writ of habeas corpus, the decision by the petitioned court to dismiss the· petition without an evidentiary hearing will be upheld); Matthews v. Jones, 14 7 Idaho.224, ~Ql P.,3d .2PO.(Ct, APP: 2p09) (~he finder .. of fact in pa~ role violation proceeding~ is ~he CoinD,rlssio:q., and a habeas ·court's role in reviewing those factual findings is limited to a 'determina­tion whether substantial evidence was presented to support them); Hoots v. Craven, 146 Idaho ·271,-192 P.3d 1095 (Ct. App. 2008) (when we review an exercise of discretion ·in a habeas corpus proceeding, we conduct a three-tiered inquiry to d~termine whether the lower court rightly perceived the issue as one of discretion,· acted within the "Qoundaries of.such ·di~cretion, and reached its decision by an· exer~~e of reasotj.; if a petitioner is not entitled -to relief on an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the decision by the petitioned court to dismiss the application without an evidenti~ry hearing will be. upheld; when .. appealing from the denial of a pet~t~on for. writ of habeas· .corpus, the petitioner has the burden of establishing en:or ).

A habeas corpus proceeding instituted in a district· court may be assigned to a magistrate of tJ1e µiagi~trates divi,sfon of the district court, provided tha~ the .magistrate to whom. the habeas corpus proceeding is assigned ·is an attorney: Idaho Code § 1-2210(1)(c). When a habeas case has beell' assigned· to a magis­trate, the magistrate's final judgment granting or deny.ing relief is appealable to the district court. Idaho .Code § l-705 (district

45

§ 16:44 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

court's appellate~j urisdiction; ext·ends ·to :all . cases ·assigned ,;ta magistrates division of the district; court);" Idaho· Code § 1-2213

. (appeals &o~ .~~Uuc.I~~nF~ <?gt~peJ~~W.§~·~EJ di'1sicn1 ~~'1l be taken· 8:Jld -h~f:ir~, in r the. IIJ.BJMl~f ,_pre~~b~~ ~y. law: qr_.,~e.;, ~le..ss otherwise pro~ded by, law or rule, .a dis.tnc~ CO\lrt Judge shall

::!::~~~ !~ilifi.n~ju~~~~f~r&tP~~:=%~~~i;Kscif the cijstr;ict coµrt ,on ·:appeal from. 'thei m~gis.trates -'divisiOQ,:··m~y be appeal~d i to. the ldah,o. Supr~ine Ool\ft. · Rule. ll(a)(~), Jdaho App .. R. (iii a. ciVil actiop. an .appellate deqision ·of.thEf distrlc~ court ~a;}i be appeale.d to s~at~ supreme, c_cfr1~)~ rrp,e .ri.o~~ce ... of appea,J mu~t :be filed~ wi~h the. cJ.erk of the. clistnct c~urt w:itmn 42 .. day~ fyom. t~e · dat~ of, tJ?.e filing. of. ~e .ju~~~t ·o~ ·.~i;de~~~-~ul~ l4(a), Idaho App. ~.o; U~de:r Idaho C<?d~j§ .1~~4.06(1),.and ~µlel08, Id_ahq App .. R., the Idaho Supre.me C.our~ has. autholi~ to assign. ap­peals (including' appeals .in habeas corpus c#ses) to the. Idaho

· Court of App~.als, and the' Id~ho· .Supreme ·court. frequeq.tly exercis'es t~s authority wi~h'resp~ct t~ qabeas:co~pu~. appe,als. See, ~.g., Dopp: v.J4tJ,ho. Com'n qf Pardons and Parole, 139, Id.aho 657, 84.· ~.~d'.59~ (Ct. 4pp.

1 ~OQ4) ~<m~gistrat~. ~en.ie4,~:µd

dismissed' inniate's habeas, petition; the district couu '-affitnied the. magistrate's. decision; tne'. Idalio' 'Coµ~ ()f Appeal~ th~n· ~f~ firmed 'ill' p~~ aritl, ~eversed in part· the deci.siOn. of the district court). , ~· -; · · · · · · : · · ·· · · · · · ; · · · ·

I_· q I . ·;_J ~. L'

§ 15:45 'Writ of habeas corpus under Idaho: Code §§ i9~ · ·: · .. ,. 4201to19-422~Text·of·§ 19~4201' · '. .;.: ·' · ·

• t. ' t. '. 'J ~ ! : ·~ ' ! i ! I ~ I l 1i ;" : • ! • , - . •· • •

. Idaho's_ habeas .. co~pus -s.tatut~s, contained ill · Ch.~pter. 42 of Title ·19· o(the Id~o.C:::ode .(.Idaho.Code§ 19-4201-through§ 19-4226), provide:. : · . •:!'·': , .• · . ; ·, .·- ·

·19.4201. :·Short title~' -~:'::·fi.' · ;·:.-• - ; ... , ···

· ·Sections 19~420i through 19!..4226·, Idaho.' Code, shall be known· aD:ff m'ay be~cited··.as· tlie "Idaho Habeas· Corpus· atid

· Institutional Litigatio1i'Pr6c~{du!e5~ct" · · · · ' ' ! . . ',' .:-~ ' . . ' . 1 . ; : \ : ' .'. ~ ~ . ~'

':

§.·15:46 ' Writ of habeas cotwpus under Idaho COde §§ 19~ · · · · ·4201 to; t9-422~TeXt of § 19·4201A ~ · · · ·

46

19·4201A. Defulitions. :~:·.1\ ·· ' · .;· '!. : · ; . ,·

. ·~ '.~s~~ in t~s chapte!~'" .. ' · · . . ., .. · ~ . _. _ . . ! (1) ~cQrrectional facility"; means;~ facility for the co}1&n~­mel).t of.priso~ers. U)1):es~ otherwis~ .. ~;pecific~lly,provided, .~e .terJI1. shall! inclµqe~ ~~~ sta~e,. lo.cal .. _or pri~at~ .correctional

· faciUty. . , .. . . . . : · · . '., · ··(2}· "In~state prisoner" means· a person ,who .. has. beei:i

I

I IDAHO § 16:47

convicted of a crime in the state of Idaho and is either n ~ncarcei;ated ,iP: ~. correctional ·facility., fo~ tl?.~t .crime. or is in

'custOdy" for trial and sentencing. •-' . . . ' ' ... : . (3) "Institution" or "state· or county institution" means a

plac~. o.wned or. operated bY: or under the c.,ontrol of th~ state ·or· county in which a:··person other than·' a ·p~isoiler is restrained and' with respect' to which restraint the person

. may $e a petition .for ~ writ. of habeas corpus ·und~r the pro-visipns of this chapter.. · . . ..

1 •

. · ( 4Y FLocal .· correcti~nal !f a~iii~~·). ~~.t\nsj. ~--.facility.for the .. ~rifinement of pr.ison~rs qperated. ~y oz: unq_~r: the. cont~ol of a: county.or city. The, .term. shall include .any reference to "jail"

I or '"~ounty jail/'' I ' '.' \/.-

0

'

0

• ' • :: ' •

0

I •• '

.... (5~ "<;:>~t-of-state. pp.~~nef' meana.Ja .pe~~on ·.who. ha~.· been . · .. convicted of a,nd sentenced for .a crime .in a state other _than

th~ .. state o(IdahQ, .«>~ ~d,er'th~_ laws.:of th~ United States· or o~her foreign._ju~s~fcMm1~: :a:q.~· whcl:.is,.being: .hQ.'1s,ed in any

. , sta;te, l.ocal or. priv.ate .corr.ec~~on~ facili~y .in th~ sta~~ of Idaho, or w~a.i~. beiµg. tra~pqrted in ~y m~e~ wthin or through the state 9f Idahp. . " . , . . . . . , .

(6) "Prisoner'' inciudes' an in:state ~r out-of-sta~e prisoner, unless otherwise specifically provided ·or unless' the· ·context clearly indicates otherivise. · · ': · · ' · ·

(7) "Private correctional facility" means a correctional fa­cility owned or operated ;in- the state of Idaho, by a private prison qQntractor.. . . . , . . . . i .. : . (8) ·~'Private· prison contractor" means any person, organi­

. zation, partnership, joint venture, corporation or other busi­ness- .entity engaged in. the , site selection, design, .design/

';building, acquisition:, constritction, construction/management, financing, maintenance, leasing, leasing/purchasing; manage-

! . ment. ,or; operati.9n: ~Qf ,priv~te. ~orrectional ,facilities~ or any combination of these services·. · \ , . , . . ,

(9) ·"State: correctional f~cility'' means a correctional facil­ity owned or operated by or unc}~r the contrQl of;the state of Idaho.

' .

'i' '" ,.

§ 15:47 Writ of habeas corpus under·Idaho·Code §§ 19· . 4201 to·l9-422~Tex:t ~f,§ 19~~202,

19-4202. Jwisdiction to,consider·petitions for writ of habeas corpus.. , '·,. , ·.... . .: ·

. . 'rhe following courts of this state shall hav:e priginal jurisdic­. tion: to ~onsidei; a. petition Jor writ of habeas tCOrJ>~~' ,grant the writ and/or order relief under this chapter: ,,

47

§ 16:47 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(1) The supreme court; or · (2) The district court qf the county in wh~ch. the person is'

detained. ···

§ 15:48 · Writ ~f babe~ corp~: under Idaho Code §§ 19· · 4201to19-4226-Text of§ 19-4203 . . ..

19-4203. Who·may.petition for a.writ of habeas1corpus. (1) Any person, not a prisoner as defined in section 19;.4201A,

Idaho Code, who· believes he is·unlaWfully·restrained of his lib­erty in this state may file ~a 'petition for writ of habeas corpus to request that· the court inquire into the cause and/or legality of the restraint. . '

(2) An in-state prisoner~ as defined in section 19-4201A, =Idaho Code, or a person who is restrained· of his liberty while involved in parole revocation proc~edings~ or while held on an agent or commission warrant in this state, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to request that a court inquire into

. . . state or federal constitutional que~tions concerning: . (a) Th~ conditions of his confinement; (b) Revocation of parol~; · , (c) Miscalculation of his sentence; . (d) Loss of good time credits; (e) A detainer..lodged against him.

(3) An out-of-stat~ prisoner, as defined in section 19-4201A, · Idaho Code,. may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus only to ·request that an Idaho court· inquire into a state or federal

. constitutional question concerning the conditions of his · confinement. Habeas corpus relief shall not be available for an out".'of-state prisoner to challenge: ·

48

(a) Any issue concerning the legality of his out•of-state conviction or sentence; · '(b) Any issue concerning the legality of the fact or dura­tion of his confinement in this state;

(c) Any issue concerning the legality of the contract or agreement or any terms thereof pursuant to which he is

·housed in this state; · (d) Any issue concerning the grant, denial or revocation of

parole for bis out-of-state .conviGtion .and sentence; (e) Miscalculation of his out-of-state sentence; (f) Loss of out-of-state good time credits or lack of (failure

. to grant) good time credits under the laws of the state of Idaho;

IDAHO § ·15:49

(g) . A detainer lodged against him. ( 4) lf abeas corpus shall not be used as a substitute for, or in

addition to, a direct appeal of a criminal conviction or proceed­ings· u:q.der Idaho criminal. rule 35 or ~he uniform postconvic~ tion procedures act-, .chapter 49, titl~ J.9; Idaho Code, and the sta~utes of.1.imita~ions imposed therein. . . .

(o) lfabeas corpus shall not be used as a sµbstitute for or in . addition to proceedings available in child ·custody matters. and proceedings under· the Idaho; domestic violence crime preven-tion act, chapter (;)3, title 39, Idaho Code. . · · ·

(6) ·aabeas corpus i~ ~P,-~iri~vidua.l rem~dy only. ; (7) For purposes of this chapter and any other civil .chal­

lenges to conditions of confinement, the term "conditions of . :~oiifinement" shall be definerl: 'as any civil procee(Uµg with, re­

spect to a condition in any state or county institution, or ~tate, local or pi;ivate correctional facility, as th9s·~ terms are defined in section 19-4201A, Idaho Code; arising tinder state or federal law pertaining to the conditions of confiriemeilt or the effects of actions by government officials or employees of a private prison contractor while employed at a private· correctional facility in the sta~ of Idaho on thelife of a person con~ed in a state or county institution, or a state, local or private correctional facility. .. : -· · :

§ ~5:49 Writ of habeas corpus under Idaho Co~e §~ 19· 4201to19-4226-TeXt of§ 19-4204

I " ~ ' ) 1 •

·19-4204. :Application for writ of habeas corpus by a person not a prisoner.

(1) Application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person not a prisoner shall be made by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district court of the county .in which the person is restrained. , · . ·

(2} The petition must ·be verified by the oath or affirmation . of the party applying for the-writ and shall specify:_ ·

· (a). That the .person is unlawfully restrained of his liberty; (b) The identity and .address of the person restraining the

subject of the petition; (c) The name and: address of the place in which the person

is ·re~trained; . 1

(d)' A description of the facts ·which make the restraint ille­gal; .~d

(e). The theory oflaw·upon which relief is sought, if known. (3) ·Application 1lnder1this ·section may be made by a guard-

49

§:16:49 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

ian on behalf of a minor or by :a. guardian on behalf of an inca­pacitate9. person as defined iA se~ion °15"."5-10.1, IdahA ;Code.

§-15:50 ··Writ of habeas corpus· ·under 'Idaho ·Code §§· 19;;. · · 4201to19-422~Text·of § '19·4205 ;. · · 19·4~05. Applicatio~ for writ of habeas corpus. by a

· - . prisoner. · · · · .. · · · · · .(i)• 'Application for a writ. of habeaa corpus 'by a prisoner shall. be made by filing a petition fo~. ~:writ of habeas corpus· in the district court of the courity in' whlch the prisoner claims his confinement oi" aspects of his · confiri~ment' ~olate prc:Wisions of

~ the state or 'federal constitutions. . . _; . . . ' -(2):· Wit~ respect to a· petitfort filed' by an in-state prisc)ner,

the petition· must be verified by the. oath or affirmatfon of the 'ptjsoner 'applying and' shal~ sp'ecify that the 'prisoner is alleging

. state or federal constitutional vfolations' concerriing: :: . . . (fi),The:condi~io,nS ofhis·:bo.xWn~~ent;'... . ; ·: '.;·'·;. :

1 (b): The revocation pf his·parol~; . _.,_ i · .

: (c) · Miscal~ulation of' his sentence;'· : . · · · · .' . : \ '•

. . . "(d) ~OSE( of'gdocftinie credits; O~_·. . . . -(~j Adetainer lodged against him. . . .

(3) With respect to a petition filed by an out-of-state· prisoner, the. petjtion must be verified by the oath or affirma#on o(,the prisoner. al>plymg_ ~i!d shallspe_Cify th~t, the' pri~oner ls alleging state or federal constitutional ·violations conce:fning •the condi­tionsrof. hi$. confinement, as .providedi in section 19~4203(3), Idaho Code. -1::

_: · ·(4). A petition filed by a prisoner under subsection. (1), (2) or (3) of this section· shall specify: · -; : · ; :

. '(a) The identify. and addres.s· of the person or officer whom the prisoner believes is responsible for the alleged ·state- or federal constitutional violations, and· shaU name tl;l~ persons

. identified individu~lly as respondents; · : : : (b) The name, if-any, and .address ·of the place in which the

prisoner is incarceratecl; . ; - . · · (c) The name and address of~the 'place' in which the

. pris.oner claims th~: constitutional violation occurr~d; (d) A short and plain statement of the facts underlying the

, alleged state or. federal constitutional _mol~tiori.; ! and (e) Whether the· petitioner is an out-of-state prisoner ...

(5) Neither the -state·ofltiahq,.any of its political subdivi­., sions, or any of its ag~ncies,. nor apy priv1;1te:,cop-ectional. facil-

50

ity;shan be. named as mspondents in ·a prisoner petition for writ of habeas corpus. ·, .. : · . :-~ " .

§ .. 15:51 \vrit of hab~as ~~~~s· ~d~J9· idaho,_CQde §§ 19· .. , ;. ;:~~~~ .. ~~.lf,J~422~Te~ Qf.§ 19~4206 ..

· ... U~·4206 •.. Prisoners. r~quired to. exhaust administrative . · s .. · relnedies in ·~Onditions .ofi confinement cases •

. . (1) U~l~ss a P.~~!ijone~'. )VhQ. ,is a. pris9:Q.er establishes to the satisfaction of the court that he is in imminent.q.ang~r .of seri­ous phy$ical injury,. no petition for writ. of habeas corpus. or any other' ciVil( actfon sllall ·be btchiglit 'by any ·~erson. confuled in a state or county institution, or in a state, local or private cor-

··; :rectional facility;with. r.espect· to conditions ·Of confinement until all available administrative reinedies·have. been exhausted. If

. the i.n.stituti91\ii or .st~_te, 1 lP,~al. q:r: prj.vat~. _corr~ctional facility does not have a system· for administrative remedy,' thi~. ~equire-ment shall be waived. ·

. (2). At the time of'filillg, the petitidffer shall subillit, ~og~ther .with the petition for writ of habeas corpus a true, correct and ·comj>l~te copy of any tlcfoumentatfon which demonstrates that he has exhausted administrative remedies described itisubsec-

. tion.(lt) .of this sectiom . ! . ; .·: • · · • "

~· .: (3)·.If at the'time:·of,rfiling :the petition.for writ of habeas corpus the petitioner fails to comply with this section, the court ·

.. , ;S~all Pis~ss th~ peti~Q~ with 9r,.without. prejucljce. ··' • ; f '• . j•) ·~ r; . ':··: ' I : ; 1 '-. : • -, 1 : ..

.. .

§:-15:52 Writ ·of habeas.-corpus under Idaho Cod~*§§ ·i9· '4201to19-4226---Text of:§ 19-4207 · , . · ~-· · · "1

i . . .

• 1 19-4207~ -·Application· tor ;Writ. ot habeas corpus ori i ·:

behalf of anbthe~:: :, · :·, ·, .. ~ 1 ·-' ' · · • •

I A p~tition·fot writ' of·ha~eas corpus- mafonly'be filed by a person described in section 19-4203~' Idaho Efode~ or. his at­~orney, except that a petition may be filed on 'behalf ~f an ag­

. grieved"'person who is a: minor, -:ar orr behalf of·a person who is , . incapacitated' a~ defined.by sect~on 1.5-~5~lOJ, Idaho Code~·by ··.··the aggrieved person's1egal guardian. ·~ · n.': J_j • : ; •

' ::

§ .1.5;5s .\Viit' ot'l~~~~a~. ~~rPus ~underI':fah~ ... cotie ,§'§ )~·. f •. · ~·. ~,· . ~~1 ~Q '1912~~~~~-.~~\§)19-~.2~~- --·.·;··t: .. '~ .. .

19-4208.. Ge:p.e.-~iPJ.\9~edur~s go~erni~g habea~ ~qrp~ , proce~<Ul:ll~·,: , · .. , . .. . · \ ... : : , · : .

A habeas corpus ·proceeding is a civil action ·and· is governed by tli~ pr.oyjsions · o(this: $~pter and the Jd~o court rules to

. ~. the, e,xtent that such(n.tles. at~· . ..P.Ot mconsis~ei;it. witp :~his ac:t .

. 51

§ 16:54 STATE PosrooNVIcTioN REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 15:54 Writ of habeas corpus under Idaho Code: §§·19·. 4201to19-4226-Text of§ 19-4209 ·

19-4209. Procedures governing prisoner habeas corpus proceedings. ·. ·. ·: ·. -; · .. ·~ ·

(1) The court may' dismiss with prejudice a·petition for writ of habeas corpus under ·this section, . in whole or~·in part, prior to service of the petition on the· respondent, if the court finds:

(a) The petition is frivolous as defined in sectiOri 12-122, Idaho Code; . · .. · · · · '

(b) ·The peti~ion has been broqgµt inalicfously ·o~rsolely. to harass; . :. ·

(c) The petition fails to state a claim of constitutional viola-tion upon which relief can be granted; · ,, .

(d) The alleged constit:rition~l _deprivation is de Jliinimis in nature; or · · ·' .1 · • · · ·

. (e) The relie(.sought is monetary damages or the return of . ; prop~rty. . · . . . ·, . . .

(2} If .the court finds that the petition shoulQ not~ be dis-. mi~s~d, then: · · · !. . •

(a) The court shall mail a copy of the petition and order of response to the respondent or: the respondent's· counsel, if known;

(b) A response tnust ·be file'd within thirty (30) days from the date the respondent or the respondent's counsel is served with the petition and order. far response .. I:& the court find.s that exigent cir.cumstances:eXist which. warrant ·an earlier response, the court shall ;s.et . forth. those circ.umstances and the allowed time for response; and ' ' . . . ': .

(c) If;the court dismisses ,tpe ·petition in part, ·t~e court may specify which issues ~d/Qr allegations remain at. i$sue for response... . ' · ····:· . . . , . (3) If the cp~ OJ"d~:r~-a response to a petition.for writ o~ ha­

beas corpus under this .sectiop, the respondeµt .~~Y .fiie any responsive motion or pleading. allowed by ~daho rules ·of c~vil procedure. ·

(4) Upon the filing of a resppnsjve moti.o:p. or,_pleading, a prisoner may ·file a ;reply to ·the ·respon.$.e.or tlie court may order a reply to the response· on its· own motion. The court should

.. consider any reply·;filed only to .. the extent·it is·relevan'.t to the issues and allegations raised in the original petition for writ of

52

habeas corpus. ·, . i · ·

(5) With respect to a· petition filed by an; in;.state prisoner the court should' not grant ai<writ·ofhab~as corpus· or order an

IDAHO . § ;}5:55

evidentiary hearing under this: section unless, after reviewing · · the petition for writ of habeas corpus,·. the response and the

reply, if any, the court finds that the prisoner's state or federal constitutional rights may have };)een violate.d relative to: If, af­ter review u:r;i.der this subsectjon, . the court :fi~ds ·that. the al­legations do not state a state or. :federal constitution~! claim, the court µiay dismiss the. petition w1~hout ~ hean~g. ,

(a) Conditions of.confinement; · · · · · · , (b) Revocation of parole; (c) Miscalculation of his sentence;

'· (d) ·Loss of good .time credits; or. (e) A detainer lodged against him.

(6) With resp~ct to a·petition filed by an out~of-state prisoner, the court sho~ld :pot grant a ~t of l;tabeas c9rpus or. order an evidentiary hearing under. this section unless, after reviewing tb~ · petitipn for writ of habeas. corpus, the response and the reply, if. any, the co-µrt; finds that. the out-of-.state prisoner's state or federal constitutional rights may have beeµ -violated relative tp the out-of~stat~ prisoner's cm;1di~ions of confinement.

· If, after review under this subsection, the court finds that the . allegations do not' state 'a state or federal. constitutional claim, the court may, dismiss ti?-~ p'etition w~thout a 4~aring.. .

(7) If the court·. issues a writ of habeas corpus and,, ·sets the ·, '~atter .for evidentiary he~µg~ the f following; shall apply: . ; ; " (a) The hearing shall he set. as exp~ditiously, as .possible

and may be at a place convenient for the court and the. par­ties,. including the institution or the state, local or private correctional facility where the pti$oner' is confined;_

- . . . I • . • . .

(b) The burde:Q. of prqof during 1;1n evidentiary hearing pur-suant to a petition for ~t of habeas c;:orpus lie.s with the prisoner; and ' " · · · · . . ' : . (c),. ¥ -so9n ~ possibi~ aft~r ,the. conciusion of the he~ng, the· court shall enter its :firidings of fact ap.d ~onclusions of law, and either dismiss the petition in i>.art or in its entirety, or grant injunctive" relief consistent with this act. . .

§ ·15;55 · Writ ~ habe~s .cqipus ·und~r I.daho Code.§§ 19.· . . . . 42ql.,to ·uJ-422~TeXt of§ 19·4~10 . . ·.

19-4210. Discovery in habeas corpus proceedings. (1) Discovery shall not .ordinarily be permitted. in habeas

corpll:S cases·. ' (2) No· discovery shall ,be ·permitted if the ·issues raised by

the petition, the response or reply are wholly legal in nature.

53

§. 15:53 STATE PosTcONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(3). If factual. issues, ane ·raised by the ·pleadings·,-· the· ·court " may; .upon motion, ~grant· leave· for discovery in accordance with l ·.:Idaho rules of ciyil. pro~edure. I· . . . l. . : •.. · I ;, . \' •

·l: (a) The party must ·-fiie a motion for leave tel' conduct 1 'discovery,:attaching a copy:of the discovery souglit. "~ ·

(b) 'If the c.o\lrt :fin.48. that, dis~ciyecy ~s neces~ary to· protect or defend a' substantive state or federal constitutiOnal right at issue, it shall enter an order tailored to allow discovery for that limited purpose. r ' . : ! ..

1

·,,, .. , .

§ 15:56 Writ of habeas corpus· under. Idaho' Code §§ 19-, 4201to19-4226-Text.pf § .19·!i211 ·.· •: • ·

·19-4211. ·Issuance of·Writ of habeas·corpus.· i".' , ; ·.

(1) Any court authorized under section 19-4202; Idahe Code, may grant a writ of habeas corpus pursuant·t~ a petition :iµed by, 1or, pursuant to· section .. 19;.4207, ·Idaho· Code, 'On· behalf ·of a person not a prisoner if;it fi~ds that the restraint ·of the person's liberty -is· illegal; · . · ·. , · · . : (2) I '.Ariy. court· authorized under section 19-4202, Idaho 'Code,

. : may1gra'nt a Writ' of habeas corj)~s arid. order if hearirig pursu­·. ant to·a p~~~tiotifiledby i:t ·priso.~er! .?r~:p~uant to ~·e~.0~·119-4207, 14aho Code, on behalf of a pnsoner when: . · . · · ·

<a} The'·' c<»tirt has · cons1d~red .. the·• f ac.ttial ·allegations contairied: in'the' petition"tbgether with 'any responsiVe 'plead­ing filed by th~ respondent,--arid a reP,lY filed 'by the ·prisoner, 'if~y; . ' . ·" 1 .. :;. ,·;. . . . '··... ; . • .• :. ·\: d';·

• (b) · The c9urt fID,ds ·that _the· petit~o~er is likely· to prevail on the' merits· of lµs state ;or' federal goristitutfonal ch~le.nge;

.. , . (c) The:· court finds. that th,e petitioner will 's:uffer iirepara­. ble injllry ll' some ·relief-is· not granted; '•: ·. I . •. . • .. : , •

. (d) The court finds that the b~lance of.~otentiat':b.arm to the· petitioner' sub,stantially 'b.l:itwe~gb:s:; aD.y,-·legitimate ·govertj.ni~n~al_µl~er~st; ,f!llld '.. · ·' . · · · . · · · · : : . ; i ; • · · · .· ·' · · • '.

(e) The court· findS that :~quity, ,favors .graritjpg ,relief tO the • • , • ~ .. , • '. . • . • ••• • ~ , • ' • • , J ~ . t • . .. r • •. .'· • \

petitioner. ·· ' (;3) Any order granting the writ should. is~µe without. delay

and 'a· hearing shoUld b~ ... schedtiled.~ T,he~rioiirt may~provfde a statement of the is'sues to. be addressed; find whether evidence will be::accepted. ..·.;~ ., .. ;... . •·. ~i • '· .:1 .. :l'.' -.:: •:\_:·;·~ .:·. ·

(4) If a1court·issues an·:order '.granting the writ·and setting the matter for hearing, the court may set the hearing. at .the

. st~te, .. loc~ o~ i private ;corr:~ctj9nal 1facility .Qr., other-. appropriate place. , . . . i · • . . . , , ".;: r . .. . .. . •1. . , ..

54

I

I IDAHO §.16:60

§ 15:57 . Writ of habeas•:eorpus ·under Idaho ·Cod~ §§ 19;. 4201 to 19~422~Text of·.§ l9.42i2

19-4212. Injunctive relief ·available ·to ·a persoil ·not a . .· ~ . · '·prisoner. . ... · .u.·; · .. -.,.i ·.

If a court finds "that' a person :not a :prisdrier\is 'beiiig 'illegally restrained, the court may fashion app~opriate· fujiili¢tjve ·relief to cure the illegality,_ ·mdudmg release. · , : ' ·. 1

· · :' · · , • :: ·

• " <, I l_ !1

§ 15:58 . :,Writ: ~f hab~~ c~iP.~~~~d~~~1

Id~o .Cod~'. §§ ! 1.9.~ ... ' -, ,4~01. to 1";~~6,--~e~ 9f.§ 19-4213 , · .. ' :~· '1 L· .. '•

19-4213. Relief available for constitutional violations · ... ·' : · . d~iJl,g-J~e .. ~gJJrs~,. Qf ·~~.v()c~t~on:, of piwole ... (1) If a court firids'thllt" an in~tate prlsoner~s conatitutional

rights have_ been vipla~e4.d:.~~g ·:~P.~. ~9~~e ;of revoc~tjo~ .. of his . par~le,.the .c~urt IJ.l.~Y, µ:B~>n spe~i~~. tin.qjng~ ~~f~ct and ~pnclu­~ion~ Qf law, ente,.- an orde~.dir~ang that.the.parole revocation ·prQ~~~dings be'. reco.nven~~· Th~ Hr(Jer;.shall. ,ide,~_tify_ ;the constitutional violation which .occurred and direct .that the violaµop ~e, cured,•,, 'I•, , . /' " , ". . • , •. _. ; . . ,

' . . . . .. ... , , .. " . . . " . . ' .

. . (2} The·:Idaho commission for pardons and parole has the . ·exclusive .alJ:thority to order rel~ase ·of an in-state. prisoner: on · .. parole pursuant to sections •20~210 and 20-223, Idaho Code. ,

.·1.

§ 15:59 'Writ or' habeas corpiis Wider Id&ho;Cod~ §§ 19· · 4201to19-4226-Text of§ 19-4214

19-4214. "Reiier a~ailabl~' for miscil!cttlation~ of. sentence ... , · .. _) · ·.- · ·· · ':: · · ·

(1) _If, ~p_on :fihcling~.·o'{f~¢t ·al?-P, .con,clu~i~ns_.-'·af law, ~court findS that an· in-state· prisoner's'! .senten(!e ·has been miscalcu­lated, .the court may order· the seri.teil.c'e to be. recalculated con-sistent with the. coUrt's findiligs and conclusions: . j

· · .• · (2) Tlle ·~o~. :n;t~Y order .th~· I>iiso~er. r~let;t~ed uh~~r ~hi~. ~ec­. tion o~ly:'if th~. 'pnso~er w;'ould be .entitled .. lt9. release. :due to expiration of his sentence correctly calculated~. ' .

. . · • .. ,,;·,

§ ,15:60' WJit of habea~ .co.,Pus,1

,~d.~r: IdJlh.o Code §§ ·9· .. 4201 to.19·'422~Te~ of-§ l$-4215

: . J19·421~. · . ·Relief' available forr.Jos~ .of good time. credits. (1) If the court· finds that;an:in-state prisoner· has lost good

time credits, without, constitutionally· sufficient du~· process, the court· may·.order a rehearing by the correctional: facility authority. : .

55

§ 13:60 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(2) Any court order requiring rehearing shall specify: (a) How due process was constitutionally insufficient and

direct tha~. the insufficiency be cured; and (b) Provide that the .officials of the correctional facility

. . . shall have not less than thirty (30) days in which to convene the rehearing. · · (3) The correctional facility a~thority shall have the respon­

sibility for the recalculation and restoration of good time credi~. If good ~ime credits are restored to the petitioner as a result of the rehearing, and restoration of good ~ime credits entitles the petitioner to release, he shall be so released .

. ·... .•· i

§ 15:61 Writ-of-habeas corpus urider Idah(f Code §§ 19· 4201to19-4226-Text of § . .19-4216 .

19.i42l6~· Relief available for detainers. (1) An in-state prisoner' may petition· for writ of habeas

corpus to challenge·the legality of a detainer which has been lodged against him by another state under the interstate agree­

. ment'on detainers, chapter.50; title 19, Idaho Code. (2) The court may set a hearing on a petition for writ of ha­

beas· corpus to inquire into factual issues involving the legality of the detainer or the legality .of delivery of the prisoner to the prosecuting state under the detainer. However, if the petition involves legal issues only, the court shall decide the matter without hearing consistent wit~.section 19-4209, Ic;l.~ho Code.

', , .. - . ·.·· .

§ 15:62 Writ of habeas co.rp~s. under Idaho Code §§ 19·

56

4201 to 19-4226-Text' of§ 19-4217 · 19-4217. lnjunct.ive relief available to p;risoners and

o~her i.D'titutionalized persons in conditions . of confhiement cases.·· · .

. · (li If the court' finds' that a prisoner's o~ other institutionaI­ized person's ·const1t.utional righ~s have bee:1:1: violate.d inyolving conditions of cqnfinement, the court :rµay order· inj_~ctive relief consistent with E;lnd subject tp t~e limitations set forll;t in 'this chapter. · · · · · ·

(2) If the court concludes that injunctive relief is necessary to' cure uncon'.stitutional ·conditions of confinement;; the court shall enter an order· subject to the (ollowing limitations:

(a) Any order for injunctive relief shall be accompanied by specific findings of fact and conclusion~ of law;

(b) Injunctive relief.shall be narrowly drawn and· extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the constitutional right;

IDAHO § 15:64

(c) Injunctive relief must be the least intrusive means nec­essary to correct the constitutional violation; · (d) The court shall give substantial weight to any adverse

impact on public safety; . . (e) The court shall give substantial _deference to the discre­tion of administrators of the institution or. the state, local or private correct~onal facility;

(f) The admii:iistrator of the institution, or of the state, lo­cal or private correctional faci1ity. shall be given all reason­able opportunities to correct state' or federal ·constitutional errors made in the internal 'operations of the institution and shall be charged with the task of devising constitutionally . ~.ound modifications tp their operatiop.s.

§ 15:63 : Writ of habeas corpus :under Idaho Code §§ 19- . . · : 4201 to 19-4226-Text. of § 19-4218 · · _ 19.:4218~· Termination.of injunctive·relief.order or.·

· decree in conditi9ns of confinement cases. In aqy civil action with respect= to . condltions of confiriement

in which prospective relief is ordered or obtained pursuant to consent decrse, the relief order or ·;decree· shall be' terminated upon the motion of any party or intervenor:

(.1) Two (2) year;s after the. date the .court· granted or ap-proved the prospective relief; '.:~

· (2) One (1) year after the date. the .court has.enter~d .an or­der·or decree denying termination .of prospective relief under this section; or

(3) In the case ofan/order:issued on or before the date of enactment of this act,, one (1), year after. such date of enactment.

§ 15:64 ' Writ of habeas corpus under ldaho Code §§ 19--·. · · · ·4~01 to 19-42~~Text· of~- .19-4219 · , · '. -. >19-4219. i~~diat~ t~rmiluiti~n of.6rder or decre~ for

_, . . prospective relief in conditions. of ~onfine~ ment cases. · · ·

(1) In any civil action with respect t~ conditions of co~fine­ment, 'the administr~to:r "of _the institution, or of tp.e state~ local or private correctional facility, or intervenor shall· be entitled to the immediate termination of any ·prospective relief if the relief

· was· approved or granted in the: absence of ·an .express· finding . by. the court that the ~eliefi ·

(a) Is· narrowly drawri; . 1 _ ,

57

§15:64 STATE PosTCONVICTION ·REMEDIES AND REUEF

(b)i.Extends no further.than necessary to correct the viola­tfon of the constitutional. rigllt; and , ·

-(c) 'Is the least intrusive ·means necessary to ·correct the violation of the constitutional right. .. · · J •

(2) Prospective ·relief shall not terniinate if the ~ct>urt makes written findings based on the record that the prospective relief:

(a) Remains necessary to . co.rrect ~· cilrrent or ongoing . viofatibn of the oonstitutional tjght; . . . . . ' . . ' '

.. - , (b} j~~~nds' no further. than nece~skrY .tq''corrept th~~·viola-. ~~on, of the CQ~stituµonal righ~;. . . · · · · ·

.· · > .· (c) ·Is narrqwly drawn; and (d) Is the least·1ntrUsive means··to correct the Violatfon.

(3) Nothing in this section shall prevent the administrator of the institution,:.10r of. the state, lpcal' or. private correctional fa:. cility, or intervenor from seeking modification· or termination before the. relief is terminable UI}.der $Ubsection (1) or (2) of this section to ''the extent' tiiat .. modification 'or termination would otli~.r\viee b~ l~gally p~rnlis~fb1e; .... ; . . ·. . . . '.'

~' ... : - • • > ' • • • •• ' ' • ~ •

~ : ~ ; • ~ " I , \ ! • . I • , ~ , : : i

§ 15:65. :Writ of.habeas 1corpus·wider·Idaho Code §§·19·" 4201 to 19-4226--Text of § 19-4220 · '. · · .

; 19-4220 .. ; Settlements .an:d consent decrees· in conditions of confinement cases•·. . '"· .

"· · (1). In· any~.ciVil action with respect to conditions of' confine­ment,·· the ,1court· shall not enter ·Oi" approve a settlement Or consent decree unless it complies with the limitations on relief

· • '. set~ forth in. section 19-421.7,: Idaho Code. 1(2).· This:section, together with sections· 19~4217,-:19-4218 and

19-4219, Idaho Code, applies to all settlements .or .consent decrees in effect at the time of passage of this act. Any settle­m~nt J>r c~qseQ..t :d~~r~e: entered int<? qefore .en~q~iµ~nt of ·!tl;rls act shall not be cpristriied·.as -~ wfl;iyer .. .pf ·t~~ appliCB:tjon of this section by any party to· the-' settlement or coriserit' 'decree, and 'm·ay b¢• terilliiuiteq' consistell.t w~th sections 19-4218' and 19-4219, Idanot~ode:·:,~· · .. . ·: ... , .. 1 ·. .~: ··:

.. . r J ' • '\ ' f ' • ' j ' ! ~ I > ' ' t

§ · l.~:'6(1 .... Wf'.it. of habeas. cor[iu~. ;under ldah~ Code ~§ 19· . : . .:4201' to 19-4220:.-:-TeXt of.§ 1.94221 J.. .. •

I ' ! ,' '\.,I i. ' • •' ' ~ ) • ' t I

; . · .19!"4221. ~ Successive claims. ; · . . ·: .. ·;,In: no event shan ·a·:pr;isoner bring -a 'civil a:ciion or appeal a

judgment in a civil action or proceeding· if the prisoner· has; 1on two (2) or more prior occasions, while~·incarcerated~ er· detained·

58

IDAHO §,16:70

in .any state, .. local ·or private correctional facility,;brought an action or appeal in a· court ·of this state that was. dismissed on any ground set forth in section, .19-4209_(-l)(a) through ~d), Idaho Code; unless: . : . . . ·•: : .. :1 · . . : ;. .. . ..•

·' (1) The pri~.oner first. obtains "leave from the ;district court having jUrisdictjon>ove~1 the· ~as~; or·" · ... · · ··· i .

' ' • 4 ... ' ' \ ; t ; \ • , ~ 3. •'. • ·~ l ,. I ' •, I-,, i ~ ; ·' -~· • ! I ' ,' ' • t

; (2) The prisoner's action 'or petition is sub~~ted . .'for fi#ng by an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of Idaho . . ~ .· :. r·:,_, -~~ ,-1· ... cii ·.- ··•· .... -~ ·~ •• •• ._

§ 15:67 Writ oi habeas ·corpit~.~de,; Id~o .c~~e §§ 19. 4201 to 19-4226-Text of § 19-4222 ·

• ' ' • • - ' • ' ~ • • _1 ~ • ;, j • ' t : r-. : :. , : ! ' ' '. . - ' . . .. . ·. . ' . f

_. · ,19-•22~~ Pdo~ showing '0.1 physfo&l hijUij o~· me~tal ill· ~.. . { . . . ness.i?equlr,,ed' . •-i . .• ... l . . . . ' . ' '

o ( • '• • __ I l ' • I j 1• 1 • ' 4 ~ 1 •' ' ' J : ' ~ ~

... ~No civil ·action may; be lirought by :a· prisoner confined in a •·state·, local or: private correctional facility for mental .or· emo­

. : .. tional injury.suffered. while-in custody wi~hout a prior showing 'of·either! . ·' :1!. ·.r' '~ '.,:.;~ ' .. .-.!·. ' .. · ' ' .. ''

': ... · d(Physical iajili-y;: ~r~·--~ . - . '· : ·: ' - · · • • • ' ) ~ :J ,• .. '. ' • I I .I I' ) ' ~ 1.

,; . (~) Djagnosed ~~ve:r;e ~4 di~abling1 ~e~tal illness .. · i _ ~) . 4 \ - : ~ ! . ~ ' _i ~ .. ~

§'15:68;· Writ of:habe•s :corpus unde~1Jd8ho;Code §§·19· ·" .. , · i 420t! tci l9-422~Te~: of·§19-~23 · -: · ' · ·

• j • ~ I ) • • • • ~ ~ •'...\; - ~ ~ ~ t : ; ' 1 , .~- ! • - • 'I ... ~ ' I : ) f ' j •

19-4223. Rigltf o!.;.~~~e.s~ ~q ~o~ ~ot .e:q>m.i4ed.. , . , , Nothi~g··in :thie. ch~te~; ~hall: b~ construed to expand. the

, :.·right of .access to :.courts fordnstitutionalized persons under federal Ol' state law~~·i·1., ·•· 1 ,: ·: ,,·• ,.\, •.· ·" 1 r '' • ,:

'• I

§. t5:(J~ _ .. \Vri_t ·of habeas·: ~orput; under: Id_abo Pode:§§' 19· · · · · - 4201 to 19~422~Text: of'§ 19-4224 . "" . ' ·· · · · ·

. ' . ~:. .: , j ' : . . . . • ' .

·J.9-4224-,, . ~xclµsive r,emedy. ~

. This chapter' sets forth the·· exclusive procedures. and reme:_. dies·;in· habeas corpus actions. , 1

•

i • • ' ; • I - ' " • r ,- ~ ' i ~

' • ' j ' . I ' t • • , I ; 't -t : • • . ~ ' ' ! • • : ' 1 ·~ :

0

§ 15:70 , Writ. 'of -~abe~s corpus under ldah(.) Code §§ 19~ ; ·.: ·4201 to 19~~2~Te~_pf § .. l,9-42~.5 . . ·. · ·

· ~9-4225 •... Liberty interest not created. . · . · .: ~ _ r· · Notlilrig in· this chapter 'shall: be construed to ereate a·. liberty

·· interest~· · · ~ · 1 , : , • • • : • " 1 • , . • · . f • • •

• ' ~ • , \- l • -:· ~ ' I_ I • • • -, .I / '• : ~· • : f .: •'

59.

§ 15:71 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 15:71 Writ of habeas corpus .under Idaho Code §§ :19· 4201 to 19-422~Text Qf § 19-4226

19.i.4226. Severability. The provisions of this act are declared to be sever&ble and if

any provision· of this act or the .. applicatio~ 9f a provision to any p~rson or circumstance is decl~ed. invali4. f<;>r. any reason, the declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining por-tions of this ad. - · · · · ·

§ 15:72 Writ of habeas ~orpus under Idaho Code §§ 19· 4201 to l9~422fl-Bistory · ,, · · · . ·. ·· ; ., ·

Prior to the enactment of the idaho uPCP .A, the .writ of _hab~as corpus was the·· principal · postcon'vfotion. remedy· in Idaho.· The traditional rule in Idaho was that the Wiit tifhabeas corpus could be used as ·a postconviction re~edy against convictions or sen­tences only to .correct· jurisdictional errors; under some circum­stances, however, habeas corpus. could· be used to ·r~medy viola­tions of constitutional rights resulting in the conviction .. :Habeas corpus could also be used to raise certain cl~s not affecting the validity of the conviction or sentence. · · ·

Furthermore;tsince· the'enactment;of the UPCPA, the use of -Idaho habeas corpus to attack convictions or sentences has been· forbidden .. The ldaho UPCPA "c:c;»mpr.eh:ends ~~d tajte~- the:.plac~ of all other common law., st~tµtory,. or oth~r remedie~" (including habeas corpus), and the UPCPA. "shall b~ us~d exclusively in place of' habeas corpus. Idaho Code § 19;.;4901(b).

Furthermore, Idaho's habeas·corpus·atatutes now prohibit the use of habeas corpus to attack convictions or sentences. See, e.g., Idaho Code § 19-4203(2)(a) to (e) (authorizing postconviction ha­beas corpus for inquiring into constitutional questions concerning conditio.ns of confinement, revo<;!ation of pa,role, miscalcul~tion. of sentence, loss of 'good time credit's~ and .. d~tainers· lodged against the inmate); Idaho· Code § 19-4203(4) (barring use of habeas corpus as substitute for, or in addition to, the Idaho UPCPA); Idaho Code § 19-42Q9(5) (habeas court shall not gra~t a .writ of habeas corpus or order an evide.ntiary hearing in .l?eh~lf of convicted prisoner unless it finds the prisoner's constitutional rights have been violated as to conditions of confinem~nt, .revoca­tion of parole, miscalculation of sentence~ loss of good time credits, and detainers lodged against the prisoner).· ·· -· : '·

As a result, Idaho habeas corpus may not be used to attack the validity of convictions. or sentences . .Inst~ad, coll~teral: attacks on convictions or sentences may be made only via the Idah9 UPCP A.

However, under Idaho's UPCPA, as well as under Idaho's ha-

60

r

\

IDAHO § 15:73

beas corpus statutes (codified in the Idaho Habeas Corpus ·and Institutional Litigation Procedures Act), Idaho· habeas corpus continues to be .an available ·remedy to. :·raise , certain postconvic­tion claims . not affecting the validity of the . conviction or the sentence. · ·

§ 15:'73 Writ of habeas corpus ·under. Idaho Code §§ 19-4201· to 19-42.26--~Use.of habeas corpus· to raise claims unrelai;ed. to ·conviction or sentence-Case law ..

·For ·c;:ase law· invol~ng' the use of po~tconviction hab~'as corpus i'.~ ld&ho_ to rai~e claims ·Un.r~lat~d to the validity of the conviction or s~ntence, ~ee, e.g. Burghart·p~ Carlin, 151 !~a.ho ·730, 264 P.3d 71 (Ct. App.: 2011) (prison:er .. Petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus ~ith tes'pect to conditions. of confinement, who: is not in iriuninent dange~ pf 'seriou8 physiCal injury, must establish to the court that all available administrative remedies have been exhausted, unless the correctional facility does. not have a. system for adntj.nistrative. remedy;· petitioner must submit documenta~ tiori dell:lons.trating such.1exha~stion; habeas petitioner, who ~haT­l~ng~d denial of Piarole,.failed 'to e~aust his.aqmimstrative ,rem­edies as to prison warden, . as his ~rguments aJr concerned the ~xhaustion of administrative remedies, or the unavailability. of any' administrative remedies, in reg~rd to the conducf of the Conuriissio:r;i of Pardons and P~ole ih denying hfui parole, and he failed' to assert or document that he· exhauste'd' administrative

; ·. . ;; . . . . . • i .

remedies for any alleged. m1S~on~uct on warden's part); ·Hyde u. Fisher, 143 Idaho :782, 152.P~3d 653 (Ct. A;pp: :20p7)(Steven Lee Hyde, an Idaho inmate, appeals from the· order of ·the district court deriying his petition for wi:it of habeae corpus, arguing his st.at'll;tory and. constitutional. rights tO practjce, his' Native Ameri~ can religion have been violat~d~ Idaho Code § 31-3220A authorizes ti:ial courj;s to waive _all or ·a;'portio~ of court fees for indigen~ prisoner litigants, proVides a mechanism for.installment payment of the fees from inmate.aq~o~~ts, ai:id pr:oyide$ .for ~he awarc;t ·~f costs and attorney fees against pri~oner · li.tigants:;upon certain determinations by the trial court;· the Idaho statute that requires filing of a bond as a condition precedent to filing civil action againstTaw enfo.rcenient offj.cer does not' apply ·to indigent prisoner's action for an all~g¢g ·violation of tpe Fr~e E.xercise of Religion Ptotecteq Act, Idalia Code§§ 73-401 et seq.; furthermore, the Religious Exercises in ·Land Use. and by Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C.A §§ 2000cc et seq., preempts any require­ment under state law that an indigent prisoner litigant post a bond as a condition precedent to bringing action); Gibson v. Bennett, 141 Idaho 270, 108 P.3d ,417 (Ct .. App. 2005) (habeas claim relat~

61

§ 16:73 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

ing to forfeiture of 314 days spent on, .parole for 'imnate whose pa­role was· revoked);· Lake v.· Newcomb;, 14'0 Idaho 190, 90·~ P.3d· 1272 (Ct. A:pp. -2004) ·(inmate's habeas corpus challenge to ·denial of consideration .for. institutional .pai;ole 1on first two of four consecu­tive indeterminate sentences for lewd conduct with minor child was not rendered moot by completion of first two sentences, where denial of '.patole. potentially ·added ·n.early;seven years to inmate's overall period of incarceration; :habeas corpus-. proceedings may be used to make. certain 'Challenges to ·confinement or unlawful condi­tions of .confinement, but not to compel access to government re-· Cord~? .. alt~ough ,µnd~r ,I~~ho. Code .. § 1~-~~~0,.Pi~~.oy.~ry ~s. permit­ted· with_ leav~ ·of .th~ :court 1n . a habeas. p~rp~s .,a~tion,. a r~ques~ for access to. re~rds is -nq~ .a. sep:ara~ely actionable,"ci~in; tp ~h~ extent .that discovery may be ·#ecess_Eµ-y· in' this case .for develop .. merit of a full evidentiary·.re·cord ·ori the claim that "'is being r~niancie~ 'to the . magistrate ·~-vi.s~on.~-· the m~~strate.: m~y a~~Jlq~ rize ·~uch discovery; becau~~, the habeas petitionefs.clainf th~t'P:e has· not received ·credit.for tilii~ he served In jail in Arizona !after lii~ arrest on ari. Idaho. warhUit1 for the escape offense was preVi­o~sly pre~en~d 'on a motion ·to~. ¢o~ection of the' sen~hce wid~r Id~o. C~nal ~ule Sp, it.~ay ~ot ·be prese11ted ag~n .by; ·a)ia; b~as,. c~i:pus petition'; . µn,d~r · Idaho. Code § 1~.-4:203( 4), ha_be~s corpu~ shall ~~ot b~ .us~d as a ~u};>st~~tite for, or in addition to, a direqt apP.eal. of a ~tjm.lnal .. c~~Viction qi• proceedihgs und~r ldaltQ Criminal Rtile 35· or the UPCPA); Dopp' v~ Idaho Com'n of Pcitdofts ~rid J'~.~6l~~·: 1.s9 ~<i~o. a.51,.·a·4~·1>.a<r p9g · cct. ·App. 2004>. CiiabeaE; C<?rpus may be µ~ed . tq ¢hallenge. d~¢al 9f parole;. in any hapeas corpus actiqrii '~~ court shall award' r.easona.ble' attorney fees,. tp the respondent' ir:the hab.e~s. cotpus action was "brought frivolously by th~ petitione~ ~ · Idalih qc>de § ~ 12~ 122; a habeas ·corpus actic>rl has bee·n: bro.ught · frivol<)usly vylien the. petition is ·b.ased upo'1 · claims thf(f~ither h~ve no basis ill fact or, ev~n if the factual' al~ leg!itions' ·ar~ ~~-,.do 'not, a~. a: ,II}'atter of: law' j~st~. any relief .to ~~e pet~tiqper; :beca~~e re)1~y~~ }?.el~ that _'Dopp'~ ha?eas 'pe~~i~~ ~d .the·accpmpaµyi~g.meRlQfand~ _presented· a cl~:µn:that ~ay entitle ·hi~

1

. ~o .r~li~f, l:we r~verse· th~. district court's ord~r award.: iD:~·a.t~?rn~!. :f~.~~· ~o: r~.~p,Orif1~4ts);

1

1

;~.· ; • • : ,_ : , •. • •• • ! '. : .·'..

§' 'lfi;74 ! Motio#s to c6n~~.~ illegal. s~ntence,, !co!Te~ct·, ·' .· · · .. · ~e~*~h~~ iimposed,~~ ~ illeg~ m~er. ~d ·' · · reduce sentence urider Idaho Crin;iinal Rule 35 ·.·· • ":' ; , ' . ,"-\ : . • .·'' _,, . .,. ·. \ :i ' j • i'-

. Rule·35,i:ldaho Grim ... R.,:is patterned after the pre~i987 ver­sion of Rule 35,· Fed.· :R.: Crim. Proc~, .and authorizes three.post.:. conviction remediesr·alt av~able in the convicting court: (1) the motion ·to correct .illegal- sentence; (2) the , motion to correct sentence. imposed iin:an.illegal. manner;-:and·:(S) the moti6n to

62

I I

!

I

/

I

\

§ 15:75

reduce sentence. Rule 35 was .originally adopted. in :1979 and has been amended numerous times-.since,then. (;· :_, .

A defendant· need not be· preselit' at· a Rule · 35 ·reduction' of sentence. Rule 43(c)(4), Idaho Crim. R. The convicting court niay not extend the time for taking any action under Rule 35. Rule 45(b)(3), Idaho Crim. R.

A final'_ order g-ra:p:tipg_ =or·d~iiying a ·Rule' 35,: _ldahp·:crini. R., motion is··appea~ab~e. t<r thf IdWio Supreme· Court~ R~le ll(c)(6), (9),.'ldaho A.pp.· R.·.(appealt9 state supr~me court from district court juclgpierit impdsi~g. serit~nce ·a(ter' co~viction, or from district cdurt·order\made ·afterjudgment·ih criminal action which affects the substantial rights of the defendant or state). However,

, under.Idaho· Code.§ 1-2406(1) and Rule:108;·Ida~o App. R., the Idaho Supreµie Court, has. authority to assign;:appeals (inQluding ~ppeals ~n Rule 35 .ca~es) to. the \Idaho Coµrt of Appeals, and the J~alio SupreIJJ.e Co¢ frequently ex~rcises.tJrl,$ ~uthority with:r~­spect, to .Rw.~, 35 appeal~~ The;-!\otig~ of S:PP~al. must: be .fi.1~4 :with

. the ~lerk _of the .district .c<?urt-)\\7;i~hi~ 42. d.~YS of entry of t~e .ord~r. ij,ul_e 14(a), ld~o:.~J>p. R.. :: f • • •

§ 15:75 Motfo~s tc>.correctilleg~ s~ntenc~~,·co~e~t .. ··. ".. . sen~ence in;ip~sea .in ·~ -~lleg._. m~er and' : . . · · · reduce ·sentence lilider Id&b.o Criminal Rule 35-

' Text , , .. , . . , ' . : ·. . ~ I . : '' . . - '

_! ~ \

Rule 35,•Idaho. Prim. R., provides: , ' I '!

' i .. .. .··1 . . .

RULE .35. CORRECTION OR.REDUCTION OF., .. 1

SENTENCE :: ! ·•

. (a) Illegal sentences. The court may.correct a sentence that is illegal from the face. of th~ reco;rd at any .tune. . . , · . : .

(b) Sentences imp~sed·_in .. an illegal mannen ··or; reduction of sentence. :The court :may, correct a sentence that _ha.s .been imposed in an illeg~ mann~r. within t~e time. provid~d herein · for tb~ .. reduction of $ent~nce., The co~ ril~y ;reduce a sente.n~e within 120 d~YEf after the fl.Ung of Ei'judgme·nt of convictiol:l.or Withi~ 120 days after th~ court' rele'ases retained Jurisdiction. The court may also reduce a. sentence upon revocation of proba­tion· or upb~. motion made within foUrte~n (14) days -after .the filing of the· order revoking· probatfon. Moti~ns to_ correct or modify sentences under: this· ruJ.e· must ~e filed ~thin "120 'days

· of the entry of the· judgment imposing •sentence or order releas­ing retained. jurisdiction and shall be considered.· and ·deter­

. mined by the court without· the: admission of additio.nal testimony and without oral argument, unless otherwise 1ordered

·by the court in its discretion;: provided, however that no .-,defendant may file more than one mo.tion seeking a reduction

of s.entenee under this Rul~. . . ·

63

(

§ 15:75 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

(c)· Credit for time served. :A motion to correct a court's computation of credit for time· served, granted pursuant to Idaho Code Sections 18-3()9 or 19-2603,. may be-made at any time. ·:·.

§ 15:76 M;otions to correct i)legal sentence, correct sentence imposed in an illegal manner and reduce sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35-Case law regarding: c~rr:ection of illegal . . . sentences and sentences imp~sed in an' illegal . manner

For· case· law involVing the· correction .of illegal sentences or sentences imposed: in .an illegal manneriunder Rule 35, Idaho Crim~ R., see, e.g.; State v. Wolfe, 158 Idaho 55, 343 P.3d 497 (2015) (while a defendant may ·only file one motfon· seeking a sentence ·reduction, there i13: no such limitation for motions alleg­ing an illegal sentence; clann that the· district co~ lacked subject matter jurisdiction over underlying murder- offense occurring on tribal grounds, which was raised in successive motion to correct illegal sentence, was barred as a matter of res judicafa; district ·court haq had such cla~ before it on at least two ptjor occasions and disposed of matters on· procedutal grounds~ determining that the interest in finality of judgments outweighed the jurisdictional issue, defendant had had the opportunity to present his argu­ments and authority on the issue, defendant failed to appeal the district court's two final decisions involving the issue, and there was no indication that trial was unfair and no evidence that defendant did not murder· victim; upon a motion to correct illegal sentence, a trial court cannot examine the underlying facts. of a crime to which a defendant pled ·g.uilty to determine if the sentence is illegal; Rule 35's purpose is to allow courts ·to correct illegal sentences, not to reexamine errors occurring at trial or before the imposition· of the sentence; "illegal sentence" is one that is illegal from the face of the record, does not involve signifi­cant questions o_f fact, and does not require an evidentiary hear­ing; illegal .sentence may be corrected. at any ti~~' therefore, Ru~e 35 mu~t neqessarily be limited to uphold the finality of judg­ments; ·Rule. 35 inquiries must involve only questions of law­they may not include significant factual determinations to resolve the merits of a Rule 35 claim; if a district court does inquire and make significant factual determinations, it exceeds its scope of authority under Rule 35); State v~ Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 P.3d 1255 (2011) (as a general matter, it is a question of law as to whether a sentence is illegal or was imposed in an illegal. fashion, over which the Supreme Court exercises free review; further, fact

64

, /

I r

\ ,

IDAHO § 15:77

that sentence had been completed did. not make defendant's :ap~ peal from district ·court's denial of his motion for correction of an illegal· sentence moot); State :v~ Bennett, '68 U.c.c~ Rep. Serv. 2d 704 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009), rev'd ondther grounds, 150 Idaho 278, 246 P.3d .387, 73 U.OJC~ Rep~: Serv. 2d 264 (2010) (a ·claim of.ille­gal sentence is .not an issue; that may be presented for. the first time on ·Efppeal~ if ·petitioner wishes· to. bring this question to the .district· court, he ;ma~ yet do. so under Idaho ·Crinll:nal Rule 35,); State v. Arthur, 145 Idaho 219, l7r7 P.3d 966 (2008) (because ,the parole, boax-d has .the,: sole .. cijscretion to determine whether· a defendant .serv~s som~. or ·all Qf the i~determin~te p~rtion. of his sentenc~, th~ 1Courj; p~es~es; th~ p~o.babl~ term. of ~onfinement is th~ fixe_p po~t~on of ;the. qe~endant's s~n:tence; in examining the re~son~b1eness' of .a sei;iten~e, the. pqurt ~o~ducts an independent review. of the entire record available,,to the trial court at sentenc­ing, focusing .on the .nature of the offense, the character .of the:of~ fender !~d .the pr~tectio.~ o( th~- public interest; it Will find that a trial co:urt abused its. discre.tion in sentencing o~iy .if, in light of th~ opj~,ctiyes of sentencing, tP,e .se:µtence was excessive under any reasonable. vi~w of. the facts); .State. v. Kerrigan, 143 I~aho 185, 141. P.3d 1054 ·(2Q06) (t~al:court had jurisdiction to hear def~ndanf s motion to co~ect an illegal sentence, d~spite state'$ a~sertion th~t motion was. a di~guised iµotion to withdraw his guilty pie.as, as re.view of .defe~~a~t's motion and subs,equent l?riefs revealed that defendant wa~ not asking to withdraw his gµil,ty :P~eas, , (act that defendant . chaH~nged legality of his sentenc~ for aggravated .battery~was .not tantamoun.t to an attack on his underlying .con~ct~on, and pourt .had authority ~Q co~ect an il~eg~l sentence at any tiµie); State v. Calley, 140 Idaho 663, 99 P.3d 6~6 (2004) (because the s~ntenceas origi:nally pronounced was legal, we ~ffirm the order pf .~he district cqurt . denyi~g Cal­ley's motion to correct a~ illeg~l se~t~~~e); State v. Owen, 143 ldEllio 274, 141 P.3d 1143)Ct_ .. App .. 2006), (a motion pursuant to Rule 35 is es~ent~ally,a reque.st fo~ leniency :vy_hich may be granted in the discretio~. of the . sentencing court; . if the sentence is not ~xcessive .. when imposeq,, the defendl:Ult must show <;>n appeal that it is·. excessive in view of new or. ~dditjonal information p~esented with his motion to r~duce the senten~e; we r~view the trial courj;'s decision f~r an abuse of dis~retion, ... applying. the .. sam_ e,criteria usecl. f9r. qetermining the reasonablenes~ of. the original sentence).

§ 15:77 Motions to correct illegal s~ntence, ~o~ect sentence imposed in:an µI~gal manner and reduce sentence unde,, Idaho Criminal Rule 35-. Casfi' law regarding motion to ~educe sentence

For· case law involving the motion: tol·reduce sentence under

65.

§.16:77 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

RUle. 35, Idaho Crim .. R.·, see,: e.g,,; Stq,te.,v. Dabney; 1159: Idaho· 7.90, 36~, E.3d· 185·. (2016.) (:when presenting .. a. Rule 35 motion, ,the aefendant must .show that .the :sentence-. is ,excessive ·in~light of new or.. additional information subsequently::provided to the district· co1wt in support of the· Rule 351 motion; ;-defendant failed to provide new info:rmation. requfa·ed·:.to .-support·, motion for reconsideration of 'se~tence· imp0sed upon, his ·:guilty. plea ito lewd conduct;'. while, defendant supported :motion ·with a letter ·from a Department of ;Correction ·employee who' was defendant's· .case manager while:defendant. was· se~I;lg·'·'rider'·time, in which ca:se manager stated<he had.!·teviewed· defendant's ·records, that defendant appeared to ·be·:J<ioing :well over~}~, that defendant-0nly llad one dis.ciplinaty ·offense report;; that' 'defen(lalif' continued to meet ·With liis c~ent CljlSe )nt:ina.ger ·to dis·cuss :p~ogram. options, and· that Cleferidant k~pt·a low'pr~file·;· thEdnfo~ation·iri'thEat let;. ter'nierely updated how defendant w~s· presently doing' and was not· ,_.elevaD:t to :reasons court .repeatedly· stated for ·itnposing se~ten·ce in ·question); State v. ~chmierer; 159'1daho ·768, !367 P.3d r163 (2016) (Criminal ·Rule 35 allows •a trial court to .correct an illegal sentence· a~ any time; as' a general matter~. it 'is .. a qqes­tion of law as to whether a seµterice is. illegal or was imposed in an illegal fashion; and the Court "ex~rcises free review over ques­tions oflaw); State v. Brunet, 155 Idaho 724, 316 P.3d 640 (2013) (:Rule 3q 'does not furictio~ as "an appeal of a: ~entence; it'is a nar­row tule'' allowing a trial ~otirt to correct 1a11 illegal se~tence;(at any time) or to correct a· sentence iniposed·in afliillegal;ma.Iuiet (\Vithin 120 days); if a ~entence· is';within the' statutoey limits, 'a b1'otion for reductfon of· sente~ce' under Rule ,35 is ·a ·plea for le.:. niency ~ and tlenial of the ·motion i's reviewed . for an ab'use Qf discretion; when presenting. ·a Rul~ ·35 motion,· the defelldarit must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new-·' or: ad~ ditiorial · information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the ;Rule ·35· motion;.· appear fyo~ the denial of _'a Rlile 35 motion cannot be used as a ~ehicle· ~o.:review the linderly­ing sentence ;absent ~he ·presentatioli'<>f ~eW· information; district court did. not abU:seits discre~ion by d~nyjhg'defendarit's oral mo~ tion to ,.-educe 1his ·original sentence, ·although 'defendant·real\zed that he ·could benefit· frOril· enrolling in a rehabilitation. pro~am, where clefendant's >opinion regarding. programming ·was new new infotniation· tll:at wowd be sUfficient basis for a motiori to ·coiTEfot or reduce sentence, and defendan.t did not offer any. new inforll!a­tion in support of his ·niotio~.); Stat'{ v: Adairt-cik-·; 152· Idaho ~45, 272 P.3du417 ·{2012) (when~·presenting·a-· Rule· 35· motion, the defendant niust show tha:e-the sentence is; excessive' in light of ·new·· or additio'n'al ·information subseqtien~ly~provided to the district:.courtin support of the ,Rule ,35 motion;. appeal fyom) the

66

/

\

\

\

IDAHO: .. ;• , § 15:77

denial of a Rule 35 motion. cannot be,-used ,asr a, -vehicle .to .renew the· underlying sentence. abse.nt, the~ :presentation ;of new: jnforma:­tio~; defendant ·presented· no.:n:ew ·information pertaining to, his sentences 180 ·as to invoke rule. permitting .. a"cour.t to ;reduce. a sentence, and. even if information that defendant's: accpmplice al­legedly took responsibility .for: a~ story· !that· th~ co~ allege<ij.y believed defendant .was:involved ·in. writing:iwas considered· n~w information, court· did _not. abuse -its-, . .discreti.on ·in .d.enying defendant's. motion for a sentence reduction);, State ;v_; • Gobler, 148 Idaho· 769.,, 229 :P.Sd .3:74. (2010) (if the sentence:was :not~excess'ive when pronouncetl, th~. defendant must: later :show: that .it is:. exces:­sive:in view of new or additional information presented,with the motiou for reduction); State ~v. Adair,-145 Idaho. 514,-181 P.3d 440 (20081 (motion·for,,reduction iQf.sentence·provides ~ prqcedure for: ·;(ii:) cprr~ction .. of· a~ .illegal· sentence; (2) cor:rectio~ of a sentence imposed in aniLlegal manner; and (3) ·:authprizingthe caurt to reduce a: lawful sentenc~ ;that, after further .examination:, is unduly harsh;jf.the .. origin.al sentence, is not excessiv.e, then.the defendant seeking reduction! :of !sentence. must. $how at. the, trial court level.that additional facts· or. inform:ation make~ th~. se.nten..ce excessive in light of that. addit,i.onal infol"Jilation; ab.sentpre$enta­tion of.new evidence; Eq).._appeal ·from denial of ,a.motion for reduc­tion. of sentence merely asks .the. Supreme Co:urt. to .re.vie.w th~ under,lyi]lg. sentence); .. State. p. Knighton.~: 14:3.Idaho, 318,. :144.1:> .ad 23 (2006) {so long as the isentence -is within the statutory .limits, .the appellant.must.show tha(the tria},cQurt, when·hµposing the sentence, clearly abused itsldiacretion;, where reasonable, mjnds could· diffe:r: whether; a sentettce, is exceesi:ve,. this· courj; :wilL not disturb the. deoisip~ .of the sentencing.~ourt;: a -~entencing court's g!'ant. or denial of a ·Rul~ .35 :motio~ fa .. ·aleQ(.subject to: :the discretiopary standaJ;"d·_of review; a.~1.1.cce~flJl·~PPell~t-muat.es­tablish that, under any reasonable .view of1 the. ~acts,· th~ -sentence was excessive consideting the robjecti-ves '.of criminal pqllisJlIJlent, which are (1) .pre>tectioJJ.tOf so.ciety,. (2),deterrence of the .individ­ual· and the publi~ :generally, Ca) .the pos$ibility of rehabilitation, and (4) punis~ent or retnbution for wrongdoing); State v. Sbu.~z, 143·1daho·;2QO, 141P.3d106.9 (.2006)(a motion fo:r;- a reduction of sentence un:der Rule 35 is a plea fo:r. Jeniency; . if the original sentence is not. excessiy~, the ·de£endant pears, th~ burden of shqw~ ing it is excessive: in light-pf ,new or additional informatiQn:not consideredi by .the sentencing .. court; here, Shutz ·prpyjded nQ -new or additiOnal inform~tioDi .to .the judge an,d simply argu~d :the jl).dge reUed on erroneous. factµal findjngs at. ~he time of. sen~nc­jng .an.d .erred in denying .. the Rule· 35 _µiotion); State. p. Hillman, 143 ldabo 295, 141 P.;3Q. 1164 .(Ct. App ... 20Q6) (ati order d~nying a µiotioµ for· .reduction of a sentence .. under Rule 35. js. revie".\'.~d fQr

67

§ 15:77 STATE PosTCoNVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

an. abuse of discretion; if the· sentence is found to lie reasonable at the. time of pronouncement,' the -defendant· must then show that it is excessive in view of the additional information pre­sented with the· motion for· redudtion); State·· v. Rodriguez,'' 142 -Idaho 786, 133 P.3d 1251 (Ct. App.-.2006) (defendant's waiver of appeal rights, included in·his plea agreeinent, encompassed right to appeal from denial of his Rule 35 postconviction motion for reduction of sentence,· where defendant filed ·no new evidence in support· of his·Jmotion for· reduction of sentence); State v. Fisch, 142Idaho 781, '133P.3d•1246 (Ct. App. 2006)-(court does not lose jurisdiction to act·tipon a·timely motion merely because the 120-day period expires before 'the judge reasonably can consider the motion·· and render a decision; rather, district. courts are allowed to retain jurisdiction over· 1timely;.filed motions for a· reas'onable time beyond the 120-day deadline; in determining wllether the court had jurisdiction at a date beyond the 120-day time limit on timely :motion for sentence reduction, appellate court considers whether the record shows a legitimate cause ~for the delay and whether that delay was reasonable in ·light of the rationales underlying· the time limit; here, under the circumstances, convict• ing court did not' err ·in granting i reduction motion thirteen mo·nths ··after the judgment of conviction); State v. Bowcut, 140 Idaho 620, 97' P.3d 487 (Ct.· App. 2004)" (district court lacked jurisdiction· to· consider Bowcut's Rule 35 motion because it was untimely, having been filed 174 days after entry of the judgment of conviction;·· Rule 35 specifies that a motion for reduction of a sentence, other-' than one for correction of an illegal sentence, must be filed within 120 ·days· following judgment; Bowcut's mo­tion did, ·not allege that the sentence was illegal;· -'.it was merely a request for leniency governed·by the 120 day time limit; this time restriction is· a 1 jurisdictional 'limitation: on the ·-power of the sentencing·court); State v. Thomas, ·140 Idaho 632, 97 P.3d 1021 (Ct. App: 2004) (relevant·factors and standard of: review involving a 4enial ·of a Rule 35 motion are well established; if the sentence is found to be reasonable at· the time of pronouncement, the defendant ·must then show that it is excessive in View of the ad­ditional· information presented with 'the motion for reduction); State v. Diggie, 140 Idaho 238, 91 P.3d.1142 (Ct. App. 200.) (under Rule 35, a defendant hasl 120 days·to move·the court for reduction of a sentence; Idaho case law has interpreted this Rule to incorporate a -reasonable period after the 120 days during which the court has jurisdiction to ·rule on the .'motion for reduc­tion of sentence; Rule 35·.does not expressly extend the district court's jurisdiction to a specific number· of days; instead, Rule 35 allows the defendant- 120' days to file a motion .for relief; o give ef­fect to the Rule, it is ·necessary that a coUrt have jurisdiction to

68

I

J r

, ..

I I

lnAH6 § 15:80

rule on the motion on days past the filing period' therefore, juris­diction to rule ·on a Rule 35 motion exists for a reasonable. period of time; unreasonable delay causes the district court to lose, juris~ 1

diction; the time limit in Rule. 35 is a limit on the period in which a defendant may ·file his motion; it is not an express limitation on jurisdiction). ·

§ 15:78 · Motions to correct clerical. error under·Idaho Rule of Criminal.Procedure 36

Another Idaho postconvictitm reme'dy is. the motion I to . correct clerical error, ·0:uthorized by Rule 36, Idaho Crim .. R., and filed in the convicting· court. Rule 36 was adopted in· 1979 and is· pat-~rned after Rule 36, Fed~ R. ·Crim. Proc. ·

Rule 36, Idaho Crim. R., provides:

·RULE 36. CLERICAL MISTAKES Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or .other parts of· the

record and errors in the record arising from oversight or. omis­sion may be· corrected by the court at any ti~e and afte~ such notice, if any, as the· court orders. · ·

l

§ 15:79 Motions· to· correct· clerical error under1daho Rule· of Criminal Procedure 36-Case law

For case law involving Rule 36, idaho Crim.' R., see, e.g., State v. Ciccone, 2009 WL 1444253 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009), aft'd, 150 ~dah~. 305, 246 P.3d 958 (2010) (becauE?e.rule 36 pro~c1es for cor­rection of clerical errors it therefore follows that a patent clerical error on the face of the document will not operate to void. a judg­ment); State v. Timbana, 145 Idaho 779, 186 P.3d' 635 (2008) (probationer could seek relief from clerical. error 'stating that four' rather than three, years of :five~year sentence were fixed by filing a motion pursuant to the rule 36); State v. Allen,· 144 Idaho 875, 172 P.3d 1150 (Ct. App. 2007) (clerical error in typing a written judgment that directly conflicts with an orally pronounced sentence· can be corrected by the trial court at 'any 'time, but the criminal rule permitting correction of such errors is not a vehicle for the vindication of the court's unexpressed sentencing expecta­tions, or for the correction of errors made by the court itself).

§ 15:80 Writ of error coram- nobis under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)

Traditionally, the writ of·error coram nobis hQ.s not been recognized· as a p6stconviction remedy in Idaho. State v.· Iverson, 79 Idaho 25, 310 P.2d 803 (1957) (question presented is.whether

69

§ 15:80 STATE POSTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

the ancient common law writ of ·error coram· nobis, ·having for its purpose. the .setting aside of a final judgment of conviction of :a court. of competent jurisdiction;· should be. recognized '11S a judicial proceeding· in Idaho; some jurisdictions recognize .the: writ to a limited. and: narrow degree .. under ·their , particular constitutional and statutory provisions; the .field contemplated by the writ :of er­ror coram nobis has _been preempted by the legislature of this state). Furthermore,,the .. .Idaho UPCPA appears. to supplant< co­ram no bis as a postconviction remedy. See Idaho Code § 19-

· 190l(b) .{lJJ>qi>~ :remesly ~o;mll_rehends ~~d t~;ke~. th~ place of all oth~r_rell}e~es and shall ~e used,exclus1v~ly m place of th~m).

, H.owever, inStuart v.,State, 128 Idaho .436, 914 P~2d 933 (1996); the Idaho Supreme Court appears to ,have held that coram nobis is a postconviction remedy in Idah.o . .ln Stuar~., the court considered and rejected on the merits a postconviction claim raised pursuant to Rule 60(b}(p), I.daJio: R. ;Civ. Proc. Raj~ 60(b), I<;laho. R.• C,iv .. ?ro~., auth9riz~s ~;,P~~c~dure. i11,the}tj~l.co11r;t for vacatiqg J~1d~~n.ta -due to mis~U.~s, inadverten~, excusaple_ ne­glect,. ifra u.d,: ·n~wly. dj~coy.ered evidenceha.nd ce.rtain .o.~her grounds. Rule 60(b)(5) provides a; I.Ileans of obtaining relief .from a final judgment where it is based on a prior judgment that has been reversed or otherwise vacated, or where it is no longer equi­table that.,the;Judgment should·.have prospective a·pplication·. Rule 60(b),.Idaho~R. '.Civ. Proc.;,clearlyjs· a.substitute for common law coram nobis, and is mod~l~d after Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. ~oc.,_ which ·1s clearly ·designe·4 to· .replace common law cor~m nobis~ · ' · ·' ; ·· : -· · · · . · · · · · 1

·• • ' •

· ·~·a .res~t of the :~tuart decisiori, I<;laho .. ~ust iiow b(reg~ded as o~~of.'~qe' states where 'coram nob~s-in the form of 8: tjio~iQ~ under Rµle 6Q(b), Id~oR. Civ~.Pr9c.-is available a~ a secono~ p~~tconVic~iqp'.remedy., ~ · . ·.: · . ' . : .. : : · : · ·: '."Furt,~~~?re, .~ule 60Cb.):may.'b~ .used by~the state ;t9.v.ac~te:~

judgl)l,~n~.gr:anting.an application for UPCPA reijef. ~1_ate.,v. H~yrend, 129 Id~~o 568, 9~.9 ·P.2d 744 (Ct. App.1996).

§ 15:S1·, Writ. of ~rror coram nobis under. Idaho Rule of · · , ' ~· r· .. ; (~jyn ~oc_ed-U.,.e 60(b)~'fe~ .. · ·-. · · : . , . '. ! ' •

· Rule 60(b),:Idaho R. Ciy. Proc., pro_vides: . ! '

RULE 60. REIJEF FROM JUDGMENT OR om,~RS '·",. . . . . . ... . . . - . ~ - . . .

(b) Grounds for Rehef from a Fmal Ju'dgment, Order, or . ~Proceeding~· On motion and just terms, .the rcourt may relieve a

party or its. legal representative from a. finaljudgment, order, or. proceeding for the: followjng veasons: ~ . , 1, : -_

70

/

I

I IDAHO . •' §·15:83

·. (:£) .mistake~ inadvertence, slirprise, orrexou:sable neglect; ' · ··c2)- newly discovered evidence· th~t,~,witlj 're~sonable dili­

gence, could not have been discovered in' tune to move for a new .trial under Rule 59~b); . · ·. . . ·r··: •.. : . · r}~ .

. (3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic1or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an ·opposing: party; : ·

(4) the judgment is void; , ,... (5) the judgm.ent ha~ )~~e~ satisfied, r~leased, ·.or dis­

charged.; it ~s .b.aserl;;;~~ ~ :eEl;l"lier N'.dgment $~t h~s~ been re­versed or vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; or

( 6) any other reason that justifies relief. ·-Ccr T4ning and Effect of the Motion> - -. .·. · · . - ·: ··f, :

. 'd). Ti~ing'.~A~otion "unde'r RtiH~:60(b},"µ}ust. be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons · (1)~ (2), and (3) no more. thafr 6 months after-the entry of the judgment·& order or the date,ofthe.proceeding.'.'.···:·· <. ~ ... · · · ·. ,

(2) Effect on Finality. The motion does not affect the jqdgll}ent's :fh1ality .or su~pen,d its oper~tion. . ,

• . : • ' ' t • • ~

~ i ~ .: • r ; • t

§ its:82 :'-Writ of'-~rro~ coram nobis Wider Id&ho 'RUie of · · ; · 'ci\Til Procedure· ~Q(b)..'....Css~· law · · · · .. : · 1

• 'I \ ,. • 1._·.:., l • '" .J • 0t , ; ',• _: >\ 1 ; > 'I

'· .. For,_case law on error coram nobis,· see.:e;g., Eby v .. State; 148 Idaho 781, 228 P.3d 998. :(2010)lcircumstances under, w.hlch defendant's· petitiQn for .postconviction relief was· neglected -due to inaction· on .part of several court-appointaj icounsel~ resulting in dismissal of petition based on inactivity,. may· hav~ presentedi the uniqu~ ~nd CP;mpelling .ci:rcums.t~p~es_ J?.eces13~p,Y; t9. warrant ap­plica~ion o( civil p:i-oced~al rule g()verniµg moti9ns for r~lief from judgment, thus ·requiring remand' for trial COl.ll't. to. exercise its .discretion and make such de~erminatfoll; Altlibligh ·th=e- ·court is vested·. with' broad· discretio11· ·in determining 1whetheii· to· grant or deny'. a~ 'motion· for relief from judgment; !its' discltetion. is -limited and niay -be :.granted only on.ia1 showing !Of :wlique: and compelling circumstances justifying relief). ·

§ 15;:8S.: ,P~sk,o~~c~l~~·DNAA~~t~g ~~atu~~1under,Idalio . .: ·. Co4e. §§ ~9-49()1(~)(6) .~d· 19~~90~(b)-:-(f) , .. ( ...

. · Idaho' ieriacted· its pdstconvfctio* DN~ 'testing)tatute' ib: 2001, Act' of Apr. 4, 2001~· ·ch': '817; 12001 Idaho: Sess.· 'Laws. ·Part of:the statute is codified within the Idaho UPCPA at Idaho'Code-~§ 19-490i(a)(6):~nd Idaho. Gode § 19-4902(b).to (f). ~ ... , .

71

§ 15:84 STATE PosTCONVICTION REMEDIES AND RELIEF

§ 15:84 Postconviction DNA testing statute under Idaho , Cqde _ §~ 1~-4901 (a)(6). and 19·4~02(13 )-(g)~'rext of

. § 19·4901(a)(6) . . . . 19-4901. Remedy-To whom available-Conditions. .

(a) Any person who has been convicted .of, or sentenced for, a crime and who -claims:

(6)- Subject to the provisiOns of section l9-4902(b) through (g)~ ·Idaho Code, that the petitjorier· is innocent of the• offense

. .

§ 15:85 Postconviction DNA testing s~atute under Idaho Code§§ 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b)-(f)-Text of

' § 19-4902(b)-(f) . . ' .

19-4902. Commencement of .proceeding~Verifica· · tion-Filing-Service-DNA testing.

(b) A petitioner may, at ·any time, file a petition before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for the perfortl)ance of fingerprint.· or forensic deoxyribo­nucleic acid (DNA) testi~g on eviqence that was secured in re­lation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction but which was not subject to the testing that is now requested because the technology for the :testing was Iiot available at the time· of trial.. The clerk shall· docket the applicatioD: ·upon its receipt and promptly·bring it to the attention of the court and

· deliver a copy to the prosecuting attorney. ·

72

(c) ·Th~ .petitioner must present a prima facie case that: (1) Identity was an issue in the trial which re~ulted in his

or her. con~~~fon; and · .' · · . , . · » · . . '. {2) The~ ~vidence ·to be tested has been subject· to a chain of

custody s.uflicient. to .establi~h that such evidence has. not been substituted, tampered: with, .replaced er altered -in any material aspect. · . · (d) A petitioner who pleaded guilty in the underlying case

may file a petition~ under subsection·. (b) ·of this section. ., (e) The trialrbourt·· shall; allow the· testing under reasonable

conditions d~signed .to protect the-~~a.t~'s .. interests in the in~eg­rity of the evidence and th~ testing· process upon a determina-tion that:. · · · · · ' · ' ·

i

(1) The result of the testing ha.s .. the scientific potential to

/

/

/

\

.,.

IDAHO . § 15:88

. produce new, ,noncumulative evidence that :would show that itis:more .probable than·not that. the petitioner is innocent; and ,.: ·

(2) The testing method requested would likely produce admissible results under the Idaho rules of evidence. (f) I~ the event the fingerptjnt or for~nsic DNA test results

demonstrate, in light of 'all adniis'sible' evidence, that the petitioner is. not the· person who. committed the ·offense,· the court shall order the appropriate relief.

(g) The cost of the forensic DNA test shall be at the petitioner's expense, except to the extent the petitioner quali­fies for the test at public expense pursuant to chapter 8, title 19, Idaho Code, in which case the fingerprint or forensic DNA test shall be performed by, and paid for by funds allocated for, Idaho state police forensic services, provided the requested method of testing or specific technology is validated by the lab, within the laboratory accreditation scope, and laboratory staff are qualified and satisfactorily performing proficiency testing iri the testing method. If the laboratory does not offer the specific type of testing required, the Idaho state police shall not be reqqired to outsource the testing or in any way pay for or reimburse any entity for the testing to be performed. For the purposes of this subsection, "validated" means the accumula­tion of test data within the laboratory to demonstrate that established methods and procedures perform as expected in the laboratpry. The petitioner may choose an ISO/IEC 17025 or an American society of crime laboratory directors/laboratory ac­creditation board accredited DNA testing laboratory to perform the DNA testing. Such testing shall be at the petitioner's expense.

§ 15:86 Postconviction DNA testing statute under Idaho Code§§ 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b)-(g)-Text of § 19-2719

The remainder of the Idaho postconviction DNA testing statute is codified within Idaho Code § 19-2719, which regulates UPCPA proceedings in behalf of death row inmates:

19-2719. Special appellate and postconviction proce· dure for capital cases - Automatic stay.

(4) . The special procedures for fingerprint or forensic DNA testing set forth in sections 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b) through (g), Idaho Code, are fully applicable in capital cases

73

§-15:86 ST4TE PosTCONVICTIOl';J REMEDIES AND RELIEF

I t' and are subjectito·the procedures·setrforthin this section, and . must! be pursued -through .a' petitiandiled:within the time Tuni­.tations of subsection (3) of this section or by July 1, ·2002, whichever i~ lat.er. . .. ,._, ·. 1 ':.:1, ' :·.

~ i • ; t . I - ; I : . ~ . . :_,.

§, 1_~:87. -Erroneotls · ConYfc~~.on~ ~t · . · Idaho does not have an, erroneotis convictions act.

•. ,.

'-··:

74

'1.

''I .......

. - ').

-.; .

. ' ...

,.

. r • ~

~' • • l '.. ~ •

.,._

··1j

' ' I • I '~~ ! ~

,.-,.

y;

'• ; .

I ':;

.i.

, ... '

· .. ·-:.!_·

. 'j) . •l ,. ' '

~; I • •• I.

,, ;

{

,"}

. J

! !" t~, : .1

.,

..

I

I

I :

I

· .

: .- I

. ~ '

·~ ~ ,, !

; I

·.

l . ~

, I

;

: '

: •,:

, .

'-·

·:,- ..

~I,·,. I

t

I