Meredith v. State
| Decision Date | 21 March 2017 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43304,2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 413 |
| Parties | JEREMY STEVEN MEREDITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
JEREMY STEVEN MEREDITH, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
Docket No. 43304
2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 413
COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
March 21, 2017
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody, District Judge.
Judgment dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Jeremy S. Meredith, Boise, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
GRATTON, Chief Judge
Jeremy Steven Meredith appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
Meredith pled guilty to felony operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6). The district court sentenced Meredith to a unified term of ten years with three years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court held a rider review hearing at which the district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed Meredith's original sentence. Meredith appealed, and in an unpublished decision, this Court affirmed the district court's order relinquishing jurisdiction. State v. Meredith, Docket No. 41468 (Ct. App. July 22, 2014).
Page 2
Meredith filed a petition for post-conviction relief and moved for appointment of counsel. The district court appointed counsel who filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief. The amended petition asserted three claims of ineffective assistance of counsel: (1) deficiency in failing to file a motion to suppress a forced blood draw; (2) deficiency in failing to obtain a mental health evaluation for sentencing; and (3) deficiency in failing to adequately investigate the case and advise Meredith prior to Meredith pleading guilty.
Thereafter, the district court held a hearing on the State's motion for waiver of attorney/client privilege. The district court granted the motion and stated that, based on its review of the amended petition, it would issue a notice of intent to dismiss the first two claims and set the third claim for evidentiary hearing. Meredith's counsel asked for leave to amend the third claim to include related allegations. The State did not object and the district court granted the request. The district court set the matter for evidentiary hearing on the third claim only, including any anticipated amendment. Nine days later, Meredith filed a motion to remove his court-appointed counsel and to correct/supplement his amended petition. Thereafter, Meredith's counsel filed a motion to withdraw as counsel.
The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss the petition for post-conviction relief. The State then filed a motion for summary disposition and supporting brief regarding Meredith's remaining third claim. Through counsel, Meredith filed a response to the district court's notice of intent to dismiss. Subsequently, a hearing was held on counsel's motion to withdraw. At that hearing, Meredith's counsel agreed to continue his representation and withdrew the motion to withdraw. However, approximately two weeks later, Meredith's counsel filed a second motion to withdraw, which the district court granted after a hearing.
Thereafter, Meredith filed the following pro se: first affidavit of petitioner, motion for leave to amend petition for post-conviction relief, memorandum in support of second amended verified petition for post-conviction relief, second amended verified petition for post-conviction relief, and motion to take judicial notice of underlying criminal records and transcripts. The State filed a second motion for summary disposition and supporting brief addressing only Meredith's first claim. A hearing was held on Meredith's motion to file a second amended petition and motion to take judicial notice. At the hearing, the district court denied Meredith's motion to file a second amended petition because Meredith had not raised any new claims. The
Page 3
district court took judicial notice of the parts of the underlying criminal case, but denied the motion in relation to a separate criminal case.
The district court filed a second notice of intent to dismiss the first two counts of the amended petition, but granted Meredith a hearing on his third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the case before entry of the guilty plea. Meredith filed a response to the notice of intent to dismiss. The district court summarily dismissed the first two claims of the amended petition, but ordered a hearing on the third. The district court also appointed new counsel to represent Meredith at the hearing. The third claim was denied after an evidentiary hearing. The district court entered a judgment dismissing Meredith's petition for post-conviction relief. Meredith timely appeals.
Meredith argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. He raises five issues on appeal. First, Meredith contends that he raised an issue of material fact as to whether counsel was ineffective in failing to file a suppression motion. Second, Meredith asserts that he raised an issue of material fact as to whether counsel was ineffective in failing to obtain a mental health evaluation for sentencing. Third, Meredith argues that the district court erred in denying his claim after an evidentiary hearing as to whether counsel was ineffective in advising him as to his guilty plea. Fourth, Meredith contends that the district court violated its duty to take judicial notice of a separate criminal case. Finally, Meredith argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to file a second amended petition for post-conviction relief.
A. Claims Summarily Dismissed
In his petition, Meredith alleged three instances of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court addressed one of those allegations after holding an evidentiary hearing. The remaining allegations were summarily dismissed prior to hearing. 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
Page 4
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 Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 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
Page 5
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 be appropriate 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial