712 P.2d 719 (Idaho App. 1985), 14976, Pierce v. State
|Citation:||712 P.2d 719, 109 Idaho 1018|
|Party Name:||Ronnie R. PIERCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.|
|Attorney:||Robert W. Galley, Twin Falls, for petitioner-appellant. Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., Myrna A.I. Stahman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||WALTERS, C.J., and BURNETT, J., concur.|
|Case Date:||December 24, 1985|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Idaho|
Ronnie Pierce was found guilty by a jury of robbery for aiding and abetting the holdup of a convenience store. He took a direct appeal from his conviction which this Court decided in State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96, 685 P.2d 837 (Ct.App.1984) (Pierce I). This is a separate appeal Pierce has taken from an order dismissing a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, I.C. §§ 19-4901 to -4911. We affirm the order dismissing the petition for post-conviction relief.
This case presents a complex procedural history. Pierce's judgment of conviction was entered and a notice of appeal was timely filed. Subsequently, Pierce filed, pro se, a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition was dismissed, after a court hearing, on the grounds that the issues raised in the petition were the same issues raised on the direct appeal to this court. A notice of appeal from the dismissal order was filed. Then Pierce filed in the district court a "motion for relief from judgment." The district court entered an order to treat the motion as one for reconsideration and, based on a stipulated stay order entered by our Supreme Court, delayed reconsideration of the petition until after the appeal in Pierce I had been decided.
Following the issuance of our opinion in Pierce I, the district court reheard the petition.
[109 Idaho 1019] The petition was again dismissed. The district court noted that one claim for relief alleged in the petition had been withdrawn by Pierce after receiving our decision in Pierce I; that all other grounds for relief alleged in the petition had been reviewed fully and decided by our court; and that in any event, the evidence supporting Pierce's allegations was inadequate to establish grounds for granting relief.
Pierce filed his brief in this appeal prior to the issuance of our opinion in Pierce I and prior to the district court's reconsideration of his petition. We therefore afforded Pierce's counsel an opportunity to file a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP