Adams v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 790,Docket No. 39842 |
| Parties | IRWIN RYAN RAY ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
IRWIN RYAN RAY ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
Docket No. 39842
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 790
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Filed: December 12, 2013
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge.
Judgment summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge
Irwin Ryan Ray Adams appeals from the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Adams' petition for post-conviction relief. Adams asserts he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing, having established a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defense counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to present expert witness testimony and by failing to investigate evidence. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
This post-conviction relief action arises from a jury finding Adams guilty of felony vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Adams was driving with a passenger, his friend, when Adams crashed his car. The car crash resulted in severe injury to the friend, and the friend eventually died as a result of his injuries. Although Adams contended his car was being chased at the time of the crash, others asserted that Adams was chasing another car. The State alleged
Page 2
via an information that Adams drove with gross negligence "by driving his motor vehicle at a high rate of speed, to-wit: 108 miles per hour in a 50 miles per hour zone trying to chase down another vehicle and crashing his motor vehicle which caused the death of the victim: [the friend]."
In the underlying case, Adams was represented by two attorneys. Adams' first defense counsel represented Adams before trial and contacted and retained the services of an accident reconstruction expert. Defense counsel provided the expert with photographs of the roadway where the accident occurred, interviews of four of Adams' family members, and an accident reconstruction report from the Idaho State Police. Approximately a month after obtaining the information, the expert contacted defense counsel and advised him of the expert's preliminary results: the expert concluded the car driven by Adams was traveling between 70 to 75 miles per hour (mph) at the time of the crash. The expert also requested additional photographs from the accident. In response, defense counsel advised the expert to finish the report and agreed to provide the photographs. According to the expert, this is the last contact the expert had with Adams' first defense counsel, and the expert had no communication with Adams' second defense counsel.
According to Adams' second defense counsel, she took over the case after she and Adams' first defense counsel decided to dissolve their legal partnership. At a continuance hearing, defense counsel indicated that the defense was awaiting results from the expert. The judge continued the trial to another date. At the status conference, a stipulation of continuance was presented to the court and the judge, again, reset the trial date. Later, the prosecutor filed a motion to compel because the prosecutor had not been provided the defense expert's report. Defense counsel informed the court at the hearing on the motion that she had spoken to the expert by phone and, based on what she had learned from the expert, she did not intend to use the expert's report at trial. The court asked if the defense's position was not to call the expert at trial, and defense counsel confirmed that she did not intend to call the expert. In fact, defense counsel did not offer the expert's testimony at trial.
Prior to trial, Adams claims he informed defense counsel that his car had mechanical issues and, according to Adams, defense counsel indicated it was unnecessary to rely on evidence of the engine's mechanical condition for Adams' defense. After Adams' vehicle was removed from the crash scene by a towing company, Adams' father acquired possession of the
Page 3
vehicle and eventually sold it to a car business. The car business owner removed the engine from the vehicle and then crushed the car body. Adams' father reacquired possession of the engine following the conclusion of the trial and had the engine diagnosed by an automobile mechanic. The automobile mechanic provided an affidavit attesting to his finding of mechanical issues with the engine. The mechanic concluded, "That while it is within the realm of possibility that the motor I disassembled and observed could have still produced speeds of up to one hundred eight (108) miles per hour, in my opinion it is highly unlikely due to its mechanical condition."
While Adams' direct appeal was pending, Adams filed the instant petition for post-conviction relief asserting seven grounds for relief that focused on three areas, two of which are at issue on appeal: (1) defense counsel's failure to present expert witness testimony from the accident reconstruction expert, and (2) defense counsel's failure to investigate evidence of the engine's mechanical condition. Attached to the petition were affidavits from the accident reconstruction expert, Adams' father, the owner of the car business, and the automobile mechanic. Subsequently, the district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss. Adams responded with a memorandum opposing the dismissal, a supplemental affidavit of the expert with an attachment, an affidavit of Adams' second defense counsel, and a supplemental affidavit of Adams' father. Thereafter, the district court summarily dismissed the petition. Adams appeals.
A petition for post-conviction relief initiates a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding, governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. State v. Yakovac, 145 Idaho 437, 443, 180 P.3d 476, 482 (2008). See also Pizzuto v. State, 146 Idaho 720, 724, 202 P.3d 642, 646 (2008). Like plaintiffs in other civil actions, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the request for post-conviction relief is based. Idaho Code § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869, 801 P.2d 1216, 1220 (1990); Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269, 271, 61 P.3d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 2002). A petition for post-conviction relief differs from a complaint in an ordinary civil action, however, in that it must contain more than "a short and plain statement of the claim" that would suffice for a complaint under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 560, 199 P.3d 123, 135 (2008); Goodwin, 138 Idaho at 271, 61 P.3d at 628. The petition must be verified with respect to facts within the
Page 4
personal knowledge of the petitioner, and affidavits, records or other evidence supporting its allegations must be attached, or the petition must state why such supporting evidence is not included. I.C. § 19-4903. In other words, the petition must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting its allegations or it will be subject to dismissal. Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64, 67, 266 P.3d 1169, 1172 (Ct. App. 2011); Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 647, 873 P.2d 898, 901 (Ct. App. 1994).
Idaho Code § 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief, either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the court's own initiative, if "it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions and agreements of fact, together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.C. § 19-4906(c). When considering summary dismissal, the district court must construe disputed facts in the petitioner's favor, but 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. Payne, 146 Idaho at 561, 199 P.3d at 136; Roman, 125 Idaho at 647, 873 P.2d at 901. Moreover, because the district court rather than a jury will be the trier of fact in the event of an evidentiary hearing, the district court is not constrained to draw inferences in the petitioner's favor, but is free to arrive at the most probable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Yakovac, 145 Idaho at 444, 180 P.3d at 483; Wolf, 152 Idaho at 67, 266 P.3d at 1172; Hayes v. State, 146 Idaho 353, 355, 195 P.3d 712, 714 (Ct. App. 2008). Such inferences will not be disturbed on appeal if the uncontroverted evidence is sufficient to justify them. Chavez v. Barrus, 146 Idaho 212, 218, 192 P.3d 1036, 1042 (2008); Hayes, 146 Idaho at 355, 195 P.2d at 714; Farnsworth v. Dairymen's Creamery Ass'n, 125 Idaho 866, 868, 876 P.2d 148, 150 (Ct. App. 1994).
Claims may be summarily dismissed if the petitioner's allegations are clearly disproven by the record of the criminal...
To continue reading
Request your trial