Palmer v. State
Decision Date | 14 July 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 13155,13155 |
Parties | Francis Clayton PALMER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Larry D. Scott, Boise, for petitioner-appellant.
David H. Leroy, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Boise, for respondent.
Petitioner-appellant, Francis Palmer, was convicted of first degree burglary on July 19, 1976, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment not to exceed fourteen years. An appeal was filed, briefed and argued before the Idaho Supreme Court, and the conviction was affirmed; State v. Palmer, 98 Idaho 845, 574 P.2d 533 (1978). Palmer then filed a motion for post-conviction relief. The court appointed counsel at Palmer's request. Counsel filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief with the Fourth District Court on September 5, 1978, alleging that Palmer had been denied a fair trial before an impartial jury because of the felony impeachment rule now existing in Idaho. A brief was filed supporting that position in the district court.
The court dismissed the petition on November 6, 1978, pursuant to the prosecutor's motion, on the ground that the issue of the felony impeachment rule had been considered and disposed of in State v. Palmer, supra. The petitioner-appellant filed this appeal on December 14, 1978.
The sole issue raised by the petitioner-appellant Palmer is whether the district court was correct in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief on the basis that the issue raised in the petition had previously been decided by this court in Palmer's appeal from his criminal conviction. State v. Palmer, supra. In this petition, the appellant challenges the constitutionality of the felony impeachment rule, I.R.C.P. 43(b)(6), 1 which provided at times pertinent to this case:
The trial court dismissed the petition saying that this issue had been decided in Palmer's prior appeal. The trial court was not correct in finding that this specific issue was decided as it was not an issue on appeal although the issue on appeal was directly related. In the trial of Palmer on burglary charges, Palmer took the stand and his own attorney asked him if he had been convicted of a felony, to which he answered "yes." No further mention was made of the felony nor were questions asked about the nature of the previous felony while the defendant was on the stand. However, in closing argument, the prosecutor referred to the defendant Palmer as an "ex-con." It was this reference that Palmer complained of in his previous appeal. He did not directly attack the felony-impeachment rule. However, in its opinion this court spoke to this very issue now raised by appellant when it stated: "It is clear that a felony record can be used to impeach the credibility of a witness." State v. Palmer, supra, 98 Idaho at 846, 574 P.2d at 534. Even though the district court was not correct in its ruling on the dismissal, because the appellant's own counsel asked whether he had been convicted of a felony, he is precluded from raising the constitutionality of the felony-impeachment rule here. 2 We therefore affirm the dismissal of the appellant's petition for post-conviction relief.
1 In 1978 I.R.C.P. 43(b)(6) was amended to require the court to make a finding that the conviction of a felony is relevant to a witness' credibility before such may be admitted.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Palmer v. Dermitt
...in Palmer I. On appeal, this court affirmed the dismissal of the petition for postconviction relief. Palmer v. State, 101 Idaho 379, 613 P.2d 936 (1980) (hereinafter Palmer II ). During the pendency of the appeal in Palmer II, Palmer filed a pro se petition for issuance of a writ of habeas ......
-
Paz v. State, 20393
...that Palmer first raised his pro se petition after finality of his appeal rather than immediately after trial. (Cf. Palmer v. State, 101 Idaho 379, 380, 613 P.2d 936 (1980); Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591, 592, 635 P.2d 955 (1981) and State v. Rhoades, 120 Idaho at 807.)5 Because these br......