Andrus v. State
| Decision Date | 09 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 45297 |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Lawrence Scott ANDRUS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. |
Fyffe Law; Robyn A. Fyffe, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Lawrence Scott Andrus appeals from the district court's order denying his Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion following the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. Andrus claims that under the circumstances, he has established unique and compelling circumstances that demonstrate the district court erred when it denied the I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion. We reverse the district court's order and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
In the underlying criminal case, Andrus was charged with felony driving under the influence of alcohol. After trial, the jury returned a guilty verdict. Andrus filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of his sentence, which was denied by the district court. Andrus appealed and this Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the sentence. State v. Andrus , Docket No. 42878, 2016 WL 207130 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2016) (unpublished). Thereafter, Andrus filed a petition for post-conviction relief and requested that counsel be appointed. Initially, the district court appointed the Twin Falls County Public Defender's Office. However, due to a conflict, that office was unable to represent Andrus and needed to provide conflict counsel. These circumstances made it unlikely that Andrus, with the assistance of counsel, could comply with the sixty-day deadline for amending the petition as set forth in the district court's scheduling order. Consequently, the public defender's office requested an extension of time to amend the petition. The district court granted the extension and ordered that any amended petition be filed by May 31, 2016.
Conflict counsel was appointed on April 21, 2016. The State filed its answer on June 15, 2016. On July 11, 2016, the district court filed a notice of intent to dismiss the initial petition pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-4906(b). As of July 11, 2016, no documents had been filed by appointed counsel. However, on July 26, 2016, conflict counsel requested an extension of time to amend the petition. The motion, in its entirety, read as follows:
COMES NOW [conflict counsel], counsel for the Petitioner, LAWRENCE SCOTT ANDRUS, and hereby requests an Extension of Time in which to file a response to file a response in the Notice of Dismissal. The basis for this Motion is that the counsel of the Petitioner has not been able to speak with the Petitioner and obtain further information from him. The Petitioners schedule has not allowed him sufficient time to allow him to respond. Counselor request an additional 30 days.
Conflict counsel provided no explanation of the actions he took to contact Andrus or why he had not spoken to his client in more than three months. Also on July 26, 2016, counsel sent what appears to be the first and only letter to Andrus.1 The district court granted Andrus a thirty-day extension. However, the record reflects that counsel filed no other motions, documents, amendments, or pleadings in the case. Andrus failed to reply within the thirty-day extension and thereafter, the district court dismissed Andrus's petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice. Andrus timely appealed and this Court, on the record before it, affirmed the dismissal of the petition. Andrus v. State , Docket No. 44686 (Ct. App. Jan. 24, 2018) (unpublished).
Andrus then filed a request in the district court for a copy of the register of actions. Next, Andrus filed a motion seeking relief pursuant to I.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). He alleged that aside from counsel notifying him that he had filed a motion for extension of time, Andrus had no written or oral communication with or from his appointed post-conviction counsel. He further asserted his appointed counsel filed no motions, amendments, or other documents on behalf of Andrus, despite Andrus having sent two letters requesting investigation and/or asking questions about the case. Andrus asserted that this inaction constituted a complete absence of meaningful representation and that Andrus relied on his counsel's representation to Andrus's detriment. Andrus further argued that because he could not file a successive petition, relief was warranted under I.R.C.P. 60(b)(6). Post-conviction counsel was not listed on the certificate of service for the I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion.
The State objected to the motion, arguing that the district court no longer had jurisdiction because the case was already on appeal, Andrus could not file documents pro se when he was represented by counsel, and the motion was not filed within six months of the entry of judgment. Post-conviction counsel was listed on the certificate of service for the objection, thus it appears that counsel was aware that such a motion had been filed.
The district court determined it had jurisdiction to hear the I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion pursuant to Idaho Appellate Rule 13(b)(6), Andrus was not prevented from filing a motion although counsel had been appointed, the motion need only be filed within a reasonable time, and the State did not provide any argument that the time was unreasonable. Nonetheless, the district court denied Andrus's motion, holding that Andrus had not established a unique and compelling circumstance justifying relief because the district court had dismissed the petition on its merits and because Andrus had not shown by way of affidavit or otherwise that there were any amendments to the petition or additional facts or arguments that would have prevented summary dismissal.
Andrus timely appealed.
The decision to grant or deny a motion under I.R.C.P. 60(b) is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Pullin v. City of Kimberly, 100 Idaho 34, 36, 592 P.2d 849, 851 (1979). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion, acted within the boundaries of such discretion, acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it, and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life , 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018).
A determination under I.R.C.P. 60(b) turns largely on questions of fact to be determined by the trial court. Waller v. State, Dep't of Health and Welfare , 146 Idaho 234, 237, 192 P.3d 1058, 1061 (2008). Those factual findings will be upheld unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 238, 192 P.3d at 1062. If the trial court applies the facts in a logical manner to the criteria set forth in I.R.C.P. 60(b), while keeping in mind the policy favoring relief in doubtful cases, the court will be deemed to have acted within its discretion. Waller , 146 Idaho at 237-38, 192 P.3d at 1061-62.
Here, the district court correctly perceived the grant or denial of an I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion as discretionary. However, the district court did not act consistently with the relevant legal standards when it determined that the holding of Eby v. State , 148 Idaho 731, 228 P.3d 998 (2010) was inapplicable.
The Court has noticed a significant increase in I.R.C.P. 60(b) motions in post-conviction cases following the Idaho Supreme Court's opinion in Murphy v. State , 156 Idaho 389, 327 P.3d 365 (2014). In Murphy , the Court addressed Murphy's appeal from the dismissal of a successive petition for post-conviction relief, as well as a denial of her I.R.C.P. 60(b) motion. Murphy , 156 Idaho at 390, 327 P.3d at 366. The Murphy opinion addressed the issue of successive post-conviction petitions. Id. Relevant to this case is the Court's holding that a claim of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel was no longer a sufficient reason under I.C. § 19-4908 to allow Murphy to file a successive petition. Murphy , 156 Idaho at 391, 327 P.3d at 367. The Court's analysis was as follows:
A request for appointment of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding is governed by I.C. § 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. I.C. § 19-4904 ; Charboneau v. State , 140 Idaho 789, 792, 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004). The decision to grant or deny a request for court-appointed counsel lies within the discretion of the trial court. Eby v. State , 148 Idaho 731, 738, 228 P.3d 998, 1005 (2010). The standard for determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding is whether the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim. Workman v. State , 144 Idaho 518, 529, 164 P.3d 798, 809 (2007). "In deciding whether the pro se petition raises the possibility of a valid claim, the trial court should consider whether the facts alleged are such that a reasonable person with adequate means would be willing to retain counsel to conduct a further investigation into the claims." Swader v. State , 143 Idaho 651, 654, 152 P.3d 12, 15 (2007). Although "the petitioner is not entitled to have counsel appointed in order to search the record for possible nonfrivolous claims," counsel should be appointed if the facts alleged raise the possibility of a valid claim.
Murphy , 156 Idaho at 392-93, 327 P.3d at 368-69. The Court noted there was no federal constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction cases. See Coleman v. Thompson , 501 U.S. 722, 752, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991) (); Murphy , 156 Idaho at 394, 327 P.3d at 370. The Court also...
To continue reading
Request your trial