673 P.2d 444 (Idaho App. 1983), 15153, Reeves v. State
|Citation:||673 P.2d 444, 105 Idaho 844|
|Party Name:||William Douglas REEVES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Defendant-Respondent.|
|Attorney:||David Z. Nevin, Chief Appellate Deputy, Ada County Public Defender, Boise, for petitioner-appellant. Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Lance D. Churchill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for defendant-respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||WALTERS, C.J., and SWANSTROM, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||December 08, 1983|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Idaho|
William Reeves has appealed from the denial of an application for post-conviction relief. His application embraced numerous claims, including a contention that he had not received effective assistance of counsel when he pled guilty to a charge of robbery. The plea resulted in conviction and imposition of a ten-year indeterminate sentence. Following an evidentiary hearing, Reeves' application was denied. We affirm.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in deciding that Reeves had not been denied his right to effective assistance of counsel. Our review of this issue is governed by three general standards. First, a post-conviction applicant has the burden of proving the grounds upon which he seeks relief. E.g., Tramel v. State, 92 Idaho 643, 448 P.2d 649 (1968). Second, because post-conviction relief proceedings are civil in nature, we will not disturb a judge's finding of fact unless it is clearly erroneous. I.R.C.P. 52(a). Third, a contention that effective assistance of counsel had been denied will be measured against the standard that an accused person is constitutionally entitled to the "reasonably competent assistance of a diligent, conscientious advocate." State v. Tucker, 97 Idaho 4, 8, 539 P.2d 556, 560 (1975). Accord State v. Elisondo, 97 Idaho 425, 546 P.2d 380 (1976). See generally Finer, Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, 58 CORNELL L.REV. 1077 (1973).
Reeves' challenge to the effectiveness of counsel is framed by the following facts. Reeves originally was charged with robbery and grand larceny. The prosecutor alleged that Reeves, at knifepoint, had robbed a victim of personal jewelry, a wallet, a checkbook, and car keys. Reeves and an accomplice then allegedly used the keys to steal the victim's automobile. While these charges were pending, Reeves informed his attorney that the encounter with the victim had originated with an incident of consensual homosexual...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP