Chernobieff v. State
Decision Date | 01 February 2021 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 47337 |
Citation | 168 Idaho 98,480 P.3d 136 |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Parties | Daniel CHERNOBIEFF, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. |
Silvey Law Office, Ltd., Boise, for Appellant. Greg S. Silvey argued.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. John C. McKinney argued.
In a case arising out of the Ada County magistrate court, Daniel Chernobieff appeals the Ada County district court's decision on intermediate appeal upholding the magistrate court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. This appeal concerns whether Chernobieff received ineffective assistance of counsel when his defense counsel objected to testimony that he alleges could have led to the suppression of evidence against him.
Chernobieff was convicted of a misdemeanor for driving under the influence with an excessive blood alcohol content in June 2014. After this Court upheld his conviction on direct appeal, Chernobieff filed a petition for post-conviction relief on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleged that his defense counsel's decision to object to testimony at a suppression hearing suggesting that the on-call magistrate could not be reached to obtain a warrant because his cell phone ringer was off ("the ringer testimony") was unreasonable and prejudicial. He argues that the objection to the ringer testimony prevented him from arguing at trial that the State did not have good cause for the on-call magistrate's unavailability. The magistrate court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal, reasoning that the objection was an unreviewable strategic decision and would not have changed the outcome of the case. The district court, sitting in its appellate capacity, affirmed. We affirm the district court.
The underlying facts in this matter are undisputed and laid out succinctly in this Court's 2016 opinion on Chernobieff's direct appeal from his DUI conviction. Those facts are as follows:
State v. Chernobieff [Chernobieff I ], 161 Idaho 537, 539, 387 P.3d 790, 792 (2016).
This Court affirmed the district court in Chernobieff I , holding that substantial evidence supported the magistrate court and district court's determination that under the totality of the circumstances an exigency existed which justified a warrantless blood-draw. 161 Idaho at 541, 387 P.3d at 794. Although this Court affirmed the district court, it expressed concern about the procedures for obtaining an after-hours warrant in Ada County at the time of Chernobieff's arrest, stating:
On December 7, 2017, Chernobieff filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The State answered and moved for summary dismissal with the magistrate court hearing oral argument December 3, 2018. The magistrate court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal from the bench, reasoning that defense counsel's conduct was a strategic decision which should not be second-guessed and the admission of the ringer testimony would not have changed the result of the case.
On intermediate appeal, the district court affirmed the magistrate court, reasoning that Chernobieff was trying to review defense counsel's performance in hindsight based on this Court's opinion in Chernobieff I and that defense counsel's objection to the ringer testimony was an unreviewable strategic decision.
Chernobieff timely appealed the decision of the district court.
Whether the district court erred in affirming the magistrate court's decision to grant summary dismissal of the petition for post-conviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel.
When reviewing the decision of a district court sitting in its appellate capacity, this Court applies the following standard:
[This Court] reviews the trial court (magistrate) record to determine whether there is substantial and competent evidence to support the magistrate's findings of fact and whether the magistrate's conclusions of law follow from those findings. If those findings are so supported and the conclusions follow therefrom and if the district court affirmed the magistrate's decision, we affirm the district court's decision as a matter of procedure.
Losser v. Bradstreet , 145 Idaho 670, 672, 183 P.3d 758, 760 (2008) (quoting Nicholls v. Blaser , 102 Idaho 559, 561, 633 P.2d 1137, 1139 (1981) ). Thus, while we review the record before the magistrate court, "we are procedurally bound to affirm or reverse the decisions of the district court." Bailey v. Bailey , 153 Idaho 526, 529, 284 P.3d 970, 973 (2012) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
The Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA), Idaho Code sections 19-4901 to 19-4911, "govern[s] all post-conviction claims that do not involve the death sentence." McKinney v. State , 133 Idaho 695, 705, 992 P.2d 144, 154 (1999) (citing I.C. § 19-4901(a) ). An application for post-conviction relief under the UPCPA is a civil action, requiring the applicant to "prove by a preponderance of [the] evidence the allegations upon which the application for post-conviction relief is based." Charboneau v. State [Charboneau IV ], 144 Idaho 900, 903, 174 P.3d 870, 873 (2007). "Summary dismissal of a petition for post conviction relief is the procedural equivalent of summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 and this Court must determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, with inferences liberally construed in favor of the petitioner." Charboneau v. State [Charboneau III ], 140 Idaho 789, 792, 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004) (citations omitted). On review, "a court is required to accept the petitioner's unrebutted allegations as true, but need not accept the petitioner's conclusions." Baldwin v. State , 145 Idaho 148, 153, 177 P.3d 362, 367 (2008).
Chernobieff's petition for post-conviction relief turns on the ringer testimony's importance to the disposition of his motion to suppress. Chernobieff maintains that defense counsel's objection to that testimony was unreasonable and resulted in the denial of his motion to suppress the evidence resulting from the warrantless blood draw. If those results had been suppressed, Chernobieff argues, he would not have pleaded guilty to misdemeanor DUI, nor could the State have proven such an action against him beyond a reasonable doubt.
"The right to counsel in criminal actions brought by the State of Idaho is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Idaho State Constitution." Dunlap v. State , 159 Idaho 280, 295, 360 P.3d 289, 304 (2015) (quoting Murray v. State , 156 Idaho 159, 164, 321 P.3d 709, 714 (2014) ). Inseparable from this right is "the right to the effective assistance of counsel." Id. The touchstone of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is "whether counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process" that the outcome of the proceeding cannot "be relied on as having produced a just result." Strickland v. Washington ...
To continue reading
Request your trial