Reece v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 2014 |
| Docket Number | 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 528,Docket No. 41369 |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
| Parties | BRENT ARDEN REECE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge.
Amended judgment summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
McRae Law Office, PLLC; Steven R. McRae, Twin Falls, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Brent Arden Reece appeals from the amended judgment of the district court summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Reece was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence and was transported to the jail. At the jail, Reece refused a breath alcohol test, and an officer transported Reece to the hospital for a blood draw. Despite Reece's verbal and physical resistance, blood was drawn from Reece. The drawn blood was subsequently tested by a forensic scientist at the Idaho State Police forensic laboratory in Pocatello, and the test revealed a 0.110 blood alcohol content. Reece was charged with felony driving under the influence and was alleged to be a persistent violator. Following a jury trial, at which the forensic scientist testified as to the blood alcohol content, the jury found Reece guilty of felony driving under the influence, and Reece wasdetermined to be a persistent violator. Reece appealed, challenging his sentence, and we affirmed in State v. Reece, Docket No. 38661 (Ct. App. Sep. 24, 2012) (unpublished).
After Reece was found guilty, a letter from Idaho prosecutors to members of the Idaho State Bar identified issues at the Idaho State Police forensic laboratory in Pocatello. A summary from the Idaho State Police indicated that employees at the forensic laboratory in Pocatello, including the forensic scientist who testified as to Reece's blood alcohol content, had wrongfully maintained a box of unaccounted for drugs used for training purposes and tour displays. Employees, including the forensic scientist, concealed this box during audits of the facility. The summary also indicated that another employee had ordered a quantity of a drug (GHB) in excess of the amount authorized under the Idaho State Police Forensic Quality Manual. The employee also concealed the drug from inspectors and auditors.
After learning of the misconduct involving the forensic scientist, Reece filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The petition alleged that the State committed a Brady1 violation by withholding and suppressing information concerning misconduct involving the forensic scientist. The petition also raised two counts alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. Relevant to this appeal, one count asserted that defense counsel provided ineffective assistance for failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence of Reece's arrest and blood draw.2 The district court sua sponte filed a notice of intent to dismiss, and Reece responded. The district court then issued a memorandum decision and judgment summarily dismissing all of Reece's claims. Reece moved for reconsideration, and the court denied the motion. The court later issued an amended judgment dismissing Reece's petition for post-conviction relief with prejudice. Reece appeals.
A petition for post-conviction relief initiates a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding, governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. I.C. § 19-4907; State v. Yakovac, 145 Idaho 437, 443, 180 P.3d 476, 482 (2008); see also Pizzuto v. State, 146 Idaho 720, 724, 202 P.3d 642, 646 (2008). Like plaintiffs in other civil actions, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance ofevidence the allegations upon which the request for post-conviction relief is based. Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869, 801 P.2d 1216, 1220 (1990); 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, however, in that it must contain 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). State v. Payne, 146 Idaho 548, 560, 199 P.3d 123, 135 (2008); Goodwin, 138 Idaho at 271, 61 P.3d at 628. The petition 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. I.C. § 19-4903. In other words, the petition must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting its allegations or it will be subject to dismissal. Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64, 67, 266 P.3d 1169, 1172 (Ct. App. 2011); Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 647, 873 P.2d 898, 901 (Ct. App. 1994).
Idaho Code § 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 facts, 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." I.C. § 19-4906(c). 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. Payne, 146 Idaho at 561, 199 P.3d at 136; Roman, 125 Idaho at 647, 873 P.2d at 901. Moreover, because the district court rather than a jury will be the trier of fact in the event of an evidentiary hearing, the district court is not constrained to draw inferences in the petitioner's favor, but is free to arrive at the most probable inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Yakovac, 145 Idaho at 444, 180 P.3d at 483; Wolf, 152 Idaho at 67, 266 P.3d at 1172; 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. Chavez v. Barrus, 146 Idaho 212, 218, 192 P.3d 1036, 1042 (2008); Hayes, 146 Idaho at 355, 195 P.2d at 714; Farnsworth v. Dairymen's Creamery Ass'n, 125 Idaho 866, 868, 876 P.2d 148, 150 (Ct. App. 1994).
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); McKay v. State, 148 Idaho 567, 570, 225 P.3d 700, 703 (2010); DeRushé v. State, 146 Idaho 599, 603, 200 P.3d 1148, 1152 (2009); Charboneau v. State, 144 Idaho 900, 903, 174 P.3d 870, 873 (2007); Berg v. State, 131 Idaho 517, 518, 960 P.2d 738, 739 (1998); Murphy v. State, 143 Idaho 139, 145, 139 P.3d 741, 747 (Ct. App. 2006); Cootz v. State, 129 Idaho 360, 368, 924 P.2d 622, 630 (Ct. App. 1996). 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 be appropriate even when the State does not controvert the petitioner's evidence. See Payne, 146 Idaho at 561, 199 P.3d at 136; 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); Berg, 131 Idaho at 519, 960 P.2d at 740; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 932, 934, 801 P.2d 1283, 1285 (1990); Sheahan v. State, 146 Idaho 101, 104, 190 P.3d 920, 923 (Ct. App. 2008); Roman, 125 Idaho at 647, 873 P.2d at 901. If a genuine issue of material fact is presented, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to resolve the factual issues. Kelly, 149 Idaho at 521, 236 P.3d at 1281; Payne, 146 Idaho at 561, 199 P.3d at 136; 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); Berg, 131 Idaho at 519, 960 P.2d at 740; Sheahan, 146 Idaho at 104, 190 P.3d at 923; Roman, 125 Idaho at 647, 873 P.2d at 901. Over questions of law, we exercise free review. Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247, 250, 220 P.3d 1066, 1069 (2009); Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 370, 33 P.3d 841, 844 (Ct. App. 2001); Martinez v. State, 130 Idaho 530, 532, 944 P.2d 127, 129 (Ct. App. 1997).
Reece raises three issues on appeal. Reece contends that the district court erred by providing additional analysis in its memorandum decision as to why the court was dismissing Reece's Brady claim without providing him the opportunity to respond to the new analysis. Reece next asserts that the district court erred by summarily dismissing his post-conviction Brady claim. Finally, Reece argues that the district court erred by summarily dismissing his ineffective assistance of counsel claim concerning the blood draw. We address these in turn.
Reece avers that the district court erred...
To continue reading
Request your trial