Lee v. State

• Decision Date: 19 August 2022
• Docket Number: 48848
• Parties: RONALD LEWIS LEE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

RONALD LEWIS LEE, JR., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.

No. 48848

Court of Appeals of Idaho

August 19, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Power County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Judgment dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

LORELLO, Chief Judge

Ronald Lewis Lee, Jr., appeals from the judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Lee was found guilty of aggravated battery following a jury trial in an underlying criminal case. Lee appealed, and this Court affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. State v. Lee, Docket No. 46104 (Ct. App. June 3, 2019). Lee filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and, after being appointed counsel, amended his petition to allege five instances of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

1

The case proceeded to an evidentiary hearing. Relevant to this appeal, Lee alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective "by failing to take proper action to obtain discovery and/or exculpatory material from the State" and "by not seeking sanctions from the State regarding the use of evidence presented at trial." At the beginning of the hearing, the parties stipulated to the district court "tak[ing] judicial notice of the underlying criminal case." Lee then testified on his own behalf. According to Lee, his trial counsel received supplemental discovery from the State one day before trial. This discovery consisted, in part, of an officer's supplemental report and video footage from the officer's bodycam and dashcam. After Lee presented his case-in-chief, the State moved "under [I.R.C.P.] 12(b)(6) to dismiss" Lee's petition, which the State believed was "appropriate under Idaho Code [Section] 19-4907" and "the provisions of that code" that allow for "summary dismissal." The district court took the motion to dismiss under advisement, with the plan to continue the hearing at a later date should the district court deny the motion. The district court granted the motion to dismiss and entered judgment dismissing Lee's petition for post-conviction relief. Lee appeals.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a decision granting a motion to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 41(b)(2),^[1] an appellate court will not disturb the district court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. Rome v. State, 164 Idaho 407, 412, 431 P.3d 242, 247 (2018). The credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given to their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the

2

evidence are all matters solely within the province of the district court. See Dunlap v. State, 141 Idaho 50, 56, 106 P.3d 376, 382 (2004). We exercise free review of the district court's application of the relevant law to the facts. See Baxter v. State, 149 Idaho 859, 862, 243 P.3d 675, 678 (Ct. App. 2010).

III.

ANALYSIS

Lee asserts error in several of the district court's factual findings and argues that, as a result, the district court erred in dismissing his petition. The State responds that Lee failed to provide an adequate record for appeal, precluding review of his challenges to the district court's factual findings. The State also responds that, even if the findings are erroneous, Lee failed to show his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel...