Shackelford v. State

• Decision Date: 27 May 2016
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 42182/42331
• Citation: Shackelford v. State, 160 Idaho 317, 372 P.3d 372 (Idaho 2016)
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: Dale Carter SHACKELFORD, Petitioner–Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

160 Idaho 317

372 P.3d 372

Dale Carter SHACKELFORD, Petitioner–Appellant,

v.STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Docket Nos. 42182/42331

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2016 Term.

Filed: May 27, 2016

Rehearing Denied June 28, 2016

Dale C. Shackelford, appellant pro se.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

J. JONES, Chief Justice Appellant Dale Carter Shackelford was sentenced to death after being convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and other crimes. He appealed and sought post-conviction relief, and his death sentence was set aside. At resentencing, Shackelford was sentenced to two consecutive fixed life sentences. Shackelford petitioned for post-conviction relief based on the resentencing proceeding. He also petitioned again for post-conviction relief based on the original criminal trial. The district court summarily dismissed both petitions and Shackelford appealed each. The appeals have been consolidated in this case.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The facts leading to Shackelford's convictions were summarized in State v. Shackelford (" Shackelford I "):

Dale Shackelford was convicted of the murders of his ex-wife, Donna Fontaine, and her boyfriend, Fred Palahniuk, which occurred near the Latah County town of Kendrick, Idaho, in May 1999. The State alleged that Shackelford conspired with Martha Millar, Bernadette Lasater, Mary Abitz, Sonja Abitz, and, John Abitz. Millar and Lasater worked for Shackelford's trucking business, Shackelford Enterprises, in Missouri. The Abitz family lived near the residence where the bodies of Donna and Fred were found. Sonja Abitz was Shackelford's fiancée at the time of the murders, and John and Mary Abitz are Sonja's parents. The alleged conspirators eventually pled guilty to charges related to the murders.

Shackelford and Donna married in Missouri in December 1995 and the relationship ended in the summer of 1997, with the couple divorcing in November of that year. Donna accused Shackelford of raping her in July 1997, and charges were filed in 1998. In the spring of 1999, Donna developed a relationship with Fred and, on May 28, 1999, the two visited Donna's brother, Gary Fontaine, at the home Gary and Donna's daughter owned together outside of Kendrick. The morning of May 29, Donna, Fred, and Gary went to the Locust Blossom Festival in Kendrick, where they met John, Mary, and Sonja Abitz.

After leaving the festival, Gary went to the Abitz's house, but he left around dark, returned home, noticed Donna's pickup in the driveway, and smelled smoke. Gary called the Abitz's house and reported that his two-story garage was on fire. Mary, Sonja, Ted Meske (Mary's brother), and Shackelford arrived at the fire and various individuals tried to extinguish it, but were unsuccessful.

At 7:40 p.m., Latah County Sheriff Patrol Deputy Richard Skiles was called to investigate the fire at 2168 Three Bear Road. When Skiles arrived at the scene, nearly an hour later, he observed several persons—including Gary Fontaine, Mary Abitz, Sonja Abitz, Brian Abitz (Sonja's brother), Ted Meske, and Shackelford—standing near the garage that was completely engulfed in flames. Based upon information obtained from Ted and Shackelford, Deputy Skiles contacted dispatch to have an on-call detective sent "because there was a possibility there could be a suicide victim in the fire." By the time the fire department arrived, the garage had been utterly destroyed. Several hours later, after the fire had been extinguished, two bodies were found in the rubble. The bodies were subsequently identified as the remains of Donna and Fred. At trial, a state fire investigator testified as to his opinion that the fire was arson.

Doctor Robert Cihak conducted autopsies of the remains, which were severely burned. Shotgun pellets were found in Donna's right chest region and a bullet was found in the back of her neck. Dr. Cihak opined that the bullet wound was fatal and was inflicted when Donna was still alive. A bullet was also found in Fred's body behind the upper breastbone, which Dr. Cihak concluded was the cause of death. Dr. Cihak offered his opinion that Donna and Fred were dead at the time of the fire.

150 Idaho 355, 361–362, 247 P.3d 582, 588–589 (2010) (footnote omitted).

Shackelford was charged with, and a jury convicted him of, two counts of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree arson, and preparing false evidence. Id. at 362, 247 P.3d at 589. The trial court, rather than the jury, sentenced Shackelford to death for the murders. Id. Based on Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), Shackelford argued in a petition for post-conviction relief that the death sentences violated the mandate that the jury and not the court weigh aggravating and mitigating factors in death penalty cases. Shackelford I , 150 Idaho at 363, 247 P.3d at 590. The district court set aside the death sentences, and we affirmed in Shackelford I . Id. at 386–388, 247 P.3d at 613–615. We also remanded Shackelford I for resentencing. Id. at 388, 247 P.3d at 615.

On March 18, 2011, Shackelford filed a "[Successive] Petition for Post Conviction Relief Capital Case" ("Successive Petition") and a "Motion for Appointment of Counsel Capital Case." The State filed an answer and a motion for summary disposition. On July 8, 2011, the district court denied all pending motions and suspended the Successive Petition pending the outcome of Shackelford's resentencing.

In Shackelford's criminal case, the State filed a Notice of State's Decision to Not Seek Death Penalty on Resentencing on June 20, 2011. In response, Shackelford contended that the court could not impose a sentence of fixed life absent a jury finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance, citing Idaho Code section 19–2515(7)(b). The district court rejected Shackelford's argument and sentenced him to fixed life for each murder, to be served consecutive with each other and the other sentences. On appeal, we affirmed Shackelford's fixed life sentences. State v. Shackelford ("Shackelford II "), 155 Idaho 454, 314 P.3d 136 (2013).

Thereafter, Shackelford filed pro se motions to amend his Successive Petition, to appoint counsel, and to petition for post-conviction relief based on his resentencing ("Resentencing Petition"). After conducting a consolidated hearing on the pending motions in both cases, and permitting Shackelford to amend his Successive Petition ("Amended Successive Petition"), the district court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal and denied Shackelford's motion for counsel. Shackelford immediately appealed the district court's orders in both cases and later timely filed amended notices of appeal after the court had entered a final judgment in each case.

Shackelford was appointed appellate counsel in both cases, but counsel moved to withdraw in each after determining that he could not file an opening brief complying with I.A.R. 11.2(a). Counsel's motions were granted and Shackelford proceeded pro se. The appeals were consolidated by this Court.

II.

ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL

1. Whether the district court erred in summarily dismissing Shackelford's Amended Successive Petition.

2. Whether the district court erred in summarily dismissing Shackelford's Resentencing Petition.

3. Whether the district court committed reversible error in denying Shackelford's Motion for Appointment of Counsel related to his Amended Successive Petition.

III.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An application for post-conviction relief initiates an action that is civil rather than criminal. State v. Yakovac , 145 Idaho 437, 443, 180 P.3d 476, 482 (2008). It is an entirely new proceeding, distinct from the criminal action which led to the conviction. State v. Beam , 115 Idaho 208, 210, 766 P.2d 678, 680 (1988).

The doctrine of res judicata applies to post-conviction relief cases. It bars defendants from raising issues decided on direct appeal in a subsequent post-conviction relief proceeding. State v. Creech , 132 Idaho 1, 9, n.1, 966 P.2d 1, 9 n. 1 (1998). Any issue which could have been raised on direct appeal, but was not, is forfeited and may not be considered in post-conviction proceedings. I.C. § 19–4901(b) ; Beam , 115 Idaho at 210, 766 P.2d at 680. "Whether claim preclusion or issue preclusion bars relitigation between the same parties of a prior litigation is a question of law upon which this Court exercises free review." Ticor Title Co. v. Stanion , 144 Idaho 119, 122, 157 P.3d 613, 616 (2007).

"Summary dismissal of a petition for post conviction relief is the procedural equivalent of summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56 and this Court must determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, with inferences liberally construed in favor of the petitioner." Charboneau v. State , 140 Idaho 789, 792, 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004).

IV.

ANALYSIS

A. The district court did not err in summarily dismissing Shackelford's Amended Successive Petition.

The district court summarily dismissed Shackelford's Amended Successive Petition on a variety of grounds, holding that none of Shackelford's claims could succeed as a matter of law. Shackelford raises several claims that the district court erred in summarily dismissing his Amended Successive Petition, each of which will be examined in turn. Because Shackelford's claims are all procedurally barred for at least one reason, the merits of each will not be discussed in detail. First, Shackelford contends that dismissing the claim regarding alleged due process violations related to jury Instruction No. 33 was error. The district court dismissed this claim on three alternative bases, concluding that Shackelford had not shown a due process violation and that the claim was barred both by res judicata and by Idaho Code section 19–4901(b). Shackelford offers no argument or authority suggesting that res judicata does not apply to bar this claim, other than to...