Banks v. State, 19184

• Decision Date: 09 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. 19184,19184
• Citation: 123 Idaho 953,855 P.2d 38
• Parties: Dwayne N. BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. Boise, December 1992 Term
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

Page 38

855 P.2d 38

123 Idaho 953

Dwayne N. BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

No. 19184.

Supreme Court of Idaho,

Boise, December 1992 Term.

June 9, 1993.

Ronald J. Wilper, Caldwell, for petitioner-appellant.

Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., and Joel D. Horton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent.

BISTLINE, Justice.

Appellant Dwayne N. Banks ("Banks") was charged with and tried for violating I.C. § 18-6101(3) (forcible rape). At the conclusion of its case in chief, the State of Idaho ("the State") was allowed over objection to amend the information to charge Banks with violating I.C. § 18-6101(1) (sexual intercourse with a female under the age of eighteen) since the victim was fifteen years old. The jury convicted Banks of the amended charge. On the grounds that the defense should have known that the information could be amended, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. State v. Banks, 113 Idaho 54, 740 P.2d 1039 (Ct.App.1987). Banks was represented by Van Bishop at trial and again on appeal.

On November 19, 1990, Banks filed, inter alia, a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. Although his Motion for Appointment of Counsel was granted in two days, the district court filed a notice of its intent to dismiss the post-conviction relief petition, to which Banks responded with his motion for retention. The court nevertheless entered an order dismissing the Banks petition.

Banks raises two issues on appeal: first, whether he may raise the issue of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a petition for post-conviction relief, and second, whether Banks set out a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel which sufficed to avoid dismissal of his petition. Banks' first issue has been previously resolved by a ruling of this Court. ¹ As to the second issue, Banks argues that the district court did not provide sufficient notice as to the grounds upon which it was contemplating the dismissal of Banks' post-conviction petition.

We agree with Banks that the district court failed to provide him with sufficient notice in its Notice of Intent to Dismiss. Idaho Code § 19-4906(b) is relevant wherein it provides:

When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and no purpose would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its intention to dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. The applicant shall be given an opportunity to reply within 20 days to the proposed dismissal.... Disposition on the pleadings and record is not proper if there exists a material issue of fact.

I.C. § 19-4906(b) (emphasis added). When the court considering the petition for post-conviction relief is contemplating dismissal sua sponte, it must notify the parties of its intention to dismiss and must provide its reasons for the potential dismissal. Ivey v. State, 123 Idaho 77, 79, 844 P.2d 706, 708 (1992); Peltier v. State, 119 Idaho 454, 456, 808 P.2d 373, 375 (1991).

The district court's reasons which it supplied to Banks in its Notice of Intent to Dismiss are reproduced in their entirety:

The Court is satisfied, on the basis of the petition and the record, that Petitioner is not entitled to post-conviction relief and that no purpose would be served by any further proceedings.

All issues raised in the instant petition either were or should have been raised on appeal from the conviction. [Citation omitted.] Petitioner makes no allegations which, even if taken as true, would entitle him to the relief sought.

It was not until the Order of Dismissal that the district court clarified its reasoning and addressed each of Banks' claims, including those relating to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The basis for the district court's contemplated dismissal as contained in its Intent to Dismiss was not sufficiently specific to meet the "reasons" requirement of I.C. § 19-4906. ² For its rationale, the district court merely echoed language found in that statute ³ and then noted that Banks was not entitled to the relief he sought. If the drafters and adopters of I.C. § 19-4906 had thought that merely iterating language from the statute would be sufficient, they would not have required that the court articulate its reasons, for a petitioner could then be expected to resort to looking at the statute for explanation. Although the court did eventually provide Banks with its reasons for considering dismissal in its Order of Dismissal, I.C. § 19-4906(b) clearly contemplates that those reasons be given before the petition is actually dismissed, inasmuch as the statute requires that the applicant be allowed to respond to the "proposed" dismissal.

Because the district court's Notice of Intent to Dismiss did not adequately notify Banks of the court's reasons, thereby precluding Banks from a meaningful opportunity to reply to the proposed dismissal, we vacate the court's Order of Dismissal and remand for a hearing wherein the district court articulates its rationale for dismissal and in turn allows Banks to respond. As noted in Ivey v. State, to avoid dismissal, Banks will need to support allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel with affidavits or "equally reliable...