Jackson v. State
Decision Date | 08 June 2018 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 44908 |
Parties | CURTIS EDWARD JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Jeff M. Brudie, District Judge.
Order granting motion for summary dismissal and judgment summarily dismissing amended petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Curtis Edward Jackson, Orofino, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
____________________
Curtis Edward Jackson appeals from the district court's order granting the State's motion for summary dismissal and the district court's judgment summarily dismissing Jackson's amended petition for post-conviction relief. Jackson presented three ineffective assistance of counsel claims in his amended petition, but the district court found his allegations conclusory and his claims unsupported by the record. Jackson contends that his allegations were not conclusory and that his claims were supported by evidence sufficient to support a prima facie case for each claim. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Jackson was charged with three counts of lewd conduct based on allegations that he committed sexual offenses against a nine-year-old girl on multiple occasions in 2009. Jackson'sfirst trial ended in a mistrial. In the second trial, the jury found Jackson guilty of all charges. The district court imposed three concurrent unified terms of life, with fifteen years determinate. Jackson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion and a motion for appointment of counsel. The district court denied both motions. Jackson timely appealed from the district court's judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of three counts of lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508, and from the district court's order denying his motion for appointment of counsel for purposes of his Rule 35 motion. This Court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the district court's order denying Jackson's motion for appointment of counsel. State v. Jackson, Docket No. 39234 (Ct. App. Dec. 10, 2013) (unpublished).
Jackson then filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which was accompanied by an affidavit of facts. In his petition, Jackson presented six claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed an answer to Jackson's petition for post-conviction relief. Jackson also filed a motion for appointment of counsel, which the district court granted. After being appointed counsel, Jackson filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, which narrowed the claims to the three pursued on this appeal. Jackson also filed an amended affidavit of facts. The State responded with an answer to the amended petition, a motion for summary dismissal and request for notice of intent to dismiss, and a memorandum in support of motion for summary dismissal. The district court issued an opinion and order granting the State's motion for summary dismissal of Jackson's amended petition. The district court then entered a judgment dismissing Jackson's amended petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice. Jackson timely appealed from both the district court's order granting the State's motion for summary dismissal and the judgment dismissing the amended petition.
A petition for post-conviction relief initiates a proceeding that is civil in nature. I.C. § 19-4907; Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247, 249, 220 P.3d 1066, 1068 (2009); State v. Bearshield, 104 Idaho 676, 678, 662 P.2d 548, 550 (1983); Murray v. State, 121 Idaho 918, 921, 828 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Ct. App. 1992). Like a plaintiff in a civil action, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the request for post-conviction relief is based. 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. Dunlap v. State,141 Idaho 50, 56, 106 P.3d 376, 382 (2004). A petition must contain much more than a short and plain statement of the claim that would suffice for a complaint under I.R.C.P. 8(a)(1). Rather, a petition for post-conviction relief must be verified with respect to facts within the 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 with the petition. I.C. § 19-4903. In other words, the petition must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting its allegations, or the petition will be subject to dismissal. Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64, 67, 266 P.3d 1169, 1172 (Ct. App. 2011).
Idaho Code Section 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief, either pursuant to a motion by 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. 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. Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 647, 873 P.2d 898, 901 (Ct. App. 1994); Baruth v. Gardner, 110 Idaho 156, 159, 715 P.2d 369, 372 (Ct. App. 1986). Moreover, the district court, as the trier of fact, is not constrained to draw inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary disposition; rather, the district court is free to arrive at the most probable inferences to be drawn from uncontroverted evidence. 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. Id.
Claims may be summarily dismissed if the petitioner's allegations are clearly disproven by the record of the criminal proceedings, if the petitioner has not presented evidence making a prima facie case as to each essential element of the claims, or if the petitioner's allegations do not justify relief as a matter of law. Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517, 521, 236 P.3d 1277, 1281 (2010); DeRushé v. State, 146 Idaho 599, 603, 200 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2009). Thus, summary dismissal of a claim for post-conviction relief is appropriate when the court can conclude, as a matter of law, that the petitioner is not entitled to relief even with all disputed facts construed in the petitioner's favor. For this reason, summary dismissal of a post-conviction petition may beappropriate even when the State does not controvert the petitioner's evidence. See Roman, 125 Idaho at 647, 873 P.2d at 901.
Conversely, if the petition, affidavits, and other evidence supporting the petition allege facts that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, the post-conviction claim may not be summarily dismissed. Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792, 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004); Sheahan v. State, 146 Idaho 101, 104, 190 P.3d 920, 923 (Ct. App. 2008). If a genuine issue of material fact is presented, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to resolve the factual issues. Goodwin, 138 Idaho at 272, 61 P.3d at 629.
On appeal from an order of summary dismissal, we apply the same standards utilized by the trial courts and examine whether the petitioner's admissible evidence asserts facts which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671, 675, 227 P.3d 925, 929 (2010); Sheahan, 146 Idaho at 104, 190 P.3d at 923. Over questions of law, we exercise free review. Rhoades, 148 Idaho at 250, 220 P.3d at 1069; Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 370, 33 P.3d 841, 844 (Ct. App. 2001).
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may properly be brought under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Barcella v. State, 148 Idaho 469, 477, 224 P.3d 536, 544 (Ct. App. 2009). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must show that the attorney's performance was deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Self v. State, 145 Idaho 578, 580, 181 P.3d 504, 506 (Ct. App. 2007). To establish a deficiency, the petitioner has the burden of showing that the attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758, 760, 760 P.2d 1174, 1176 (1988); Knutsen v. State, 144 Idaho 433, 442, 163 P.3d 222, 231 (Ct. App. 2007). To establish prejudice, the petitioner must show a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney's deficient performance, the outcome of the trial would have been different. Aragon, 114 Idaho at 761, 760 P.2d at 1177; Knutsen, 144 Idaho at 442, 163 P.3d at 231. This Court has long adhered to the proposition that tactical or strategic decisions of trial counsel will not be second-guessed on appeal unless those decisions are based on inadequate preparation, ignorance of relevant law, or other shortcomings capable of objective evaluation. Gonzales v. State, 151 Idaho 168, 172, 254 P.3d 69, 73 (Ct. App. 2011).
Jackson presents to us for review the dismissal of three of his claims from his amended petition. Jackson argues that he has pleaded a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to conduct an adequate investigation, failure to move for a change of venue, and failure to object to the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss a juror for cause. Jackson...
To continue reading
Request your trial