764 P.2d 129 (Idaho App. 1988), 17113, Young v. State

Docket Nº:17113.
Citation:764 P.2d 129, 115 Idaho 52
Opinion Judge:PER CURIAM.
Party Name:Donald Allen YOUNG III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
Attorney:Donald Allen Young III, pro se. Jim Jones, Atty. Gen. by Peter C. Erbland and David R. Minert, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for respondent.
Case Date:November 02, 1988
Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 129

764 P.2d 129 (Idaho App. 1988)

115 Idaho 52

Donald Allen YOUNG III, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

No. 17113.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

November 2, 1988

Petition for Review Denied Dec. 30, 1988.

Page 130

[115 Idaho 53] Donald Allen Young III, pro se.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen. by Peter C. Erbland and David R. Minert, Deputy Attys. Gen., Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying Donald Young's application for post-conviction relief. The application alleges ineffective assistance of counsel and alleged misconduct by officers of the state. We affirm the order denying the application.

Young was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and of possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime. On direct appeal he challenged his murder conviction, but we upheld the judgment. State v. Young, 106 Idaho 142, 676 P.2d 56 (Ct.App.1984). Young also filed a motion to reduce a sentence of fixed life imprisonment imposed for the murder. His motion was denied. The order denying the motion was not appealed. Young later filed an application for post-conviction relief under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, I.C. §§ 19-4901 to -4911. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the application. This appeal followed.

Although Young's brief contains numerous assertions of unfair treatment, we deem the case to comprise two principal issues: whether he lacked effective assistance of counsel at the original trial, and whether the prosecutor or other state officers engaged in prejudicial misconduct. We will discuss these issues in turn.

I

Young argues that his trial counsel represented him ineffectively on an issue of intoxication, as it related to specific intent on the charge of first degree murder. To prevail on a claim of ineffective

Page 131

[115 Idaho 54] assistance, the claimant must show that his attorney's performance was deficient, and that he was prejudiced by the deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); State v. Freeman, 110 Idaho 117, 714 P.2d 86 (Ct.App.1986). To establish such a deficiency, the claimant has the burden of showing that his attorney's performance fell below the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. To establish prejudice, the claimant must show a reasonable probability that but...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP