State v. McCoggle
| Decision Date | 11 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43179,Docket No. 43178,2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 759 |
| Court | Idaho Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARIO KOWAM McCOGGLE, Defendant-Appellant. MARIO KOWAM McCOGGLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent. |
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge.
Order of the district court partially dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed; judgment of conviction and sentence, affirmed.
Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Deborah A. Whipple, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
____________________
In these consolidated cases, Mario Kowam McCoggle appeals from the district court's order summarily dismissing one of the claims from his petition for post-conviction relief. Because the parties had stipulated to his other post-conviction claim, the court reentered McCoggle's judgment of conviction and sentence so as to allow a direct appeal. He now appeals from that judgment of conviction and sentence alleging that his sentence is excessive. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
McCoggle entered a guilty plea to felony domestic violence in the presence of a child. Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), 18-918(2), 18-918(4). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. In sentencing McCoggle, the court considered various materials within a presentence investigation (PSI) report. One of the items within the PSI report was a Victim Impact Statement which contained allegations by the victim that McCoggle had abused her seven-year-old son. The PSI also contained a summary of an interview conducted with that same son, who was present during the underlying offense, which contained the son's reports of abusive conduct.
During McCoggle's sentencing hearing, the court specifically asked McCoggle if he had received the PSI report and had adequate time to review the materials. McCoggle answered affirmatively. The court then provided McCoggle with the opportunity to object to and rebut the information within the PSI report. His trial counsel took advantage of that opportunity by calling attention to a number of factual errors, which the district court corrected. Counsel also disputed other allegations within the report, which the court properly noted. The court then specifically asked, "Mr. McCoggle, anything in these materials you believe to be inaccurate that you wish to call to my attention that your attorney has not?" McCoggle answered, "No, sir." The court sentenced McCoggle to a unified sentence of fifteen years with five years determinate.
McCoggle timely appealed his judgment of conviction and sentence. He also filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. McCoggle then appealed the denial. This Court consolidated the appeals, ultimately dismissing McCoggle's direct appeal and affirming the denial of his Rule 35 motion. State v. McCoggle, Docket Nos. 40610 and 40906 (Ct. App. Sept. 20, 2013) (per curium) (unpublished).
McCoggle then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The district court appointed counsel as to certain claims and gave notice of its intent to dismiss others. Appointed counsel then filed a supplemental amended petition, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (Count I) and ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (Count II). The court thennoticed its intent to dismiss Count I and set the issue of Count II for an evidentiary hearing. In response, the State and McCoggle stipulated to the reentry of the judgment of conviction so as to allow a direct appeal. The court entered judgment dismissing Count I and granting relief on Count II in the post-conviction case. The court then entered a superseding judgment of conviction and sentence in the criminal case.
In a consolidated appeal, McCoggle now appeals the district court's summary dismissal of his post-conviction claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, and McCoggle contends his sentence is excessive.
McCoggle argues that the district court erred in summarily dismissing his claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion in imposing an excessive sentence. We address each issue in turn.
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 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 I.R.C.P. 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 § 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 fromthe 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 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 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); Sheahan v. State, 146 Idaho 101, 104, 190 P.3d 920, 923 (Ct. App. 2008). If a genuine issue of material fact is presented, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to resolve the factual issues. 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); Sheahan, 146 Idaho at 104, 190 P.3d at 923. Over questions of law, we exercise free review. Rhoades, 148 Idaho at 250, 220 P.3d at 1069; Downing v. State, 136 Idaho 367, 370, 33 P.3d 841, 844 (Ct. App. 2001).
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may properly be brought under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. Murray v. State, 121 Idaho 918, 924-25, 828 P.2d 1323, 1329-30 (Ct. App. 1992). To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the petitioner must show that the attorney's performance was deficient and that the petitioner was prejudiced by the deficiency. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 (1984); Hassett v. State, 127 Idaho 313, 316, 900 P.2d 221, 224 (Ct. App. 1995). To establish a deficiency, the petitioner has the burden of showing that the attorney's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758, 760, 760 P.2d 1174, 1176 (1988). To establish prejudice, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial