Storm v. State, 16098

Citation112 Idaho 718,735 P.2d 1029
Decision Date08 April 1987
Docket NumberNo. 16098,16098
PartiesRick STORM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Page 1029

735 P.2d 1029
112 Idaho 718
Rick STORM, Petitioner-Appellant,
STATE of Idaho, Respondent.
No. 16098.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
April 8, 1987.

Stewart A. Morris, Boise, for petitioner-appellant.

Jim Jones, Atty. Gen., Lynn E. Thomas, Sol. Gen., and David R. Minert, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), Boise, for respondent.


Rick Storm appeals from the district court's decision and order denying his petition for post-conviction relief as provided for in I.C. § 19-4901 et seq. Storm previously had been found guilty of rape. Storm alleges he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial. We affirm the decision of the district court.


The facts as enumerated by Storm and agreed to by the state are as follows. Storm was convicted of committing a rape on June 2, 1981. The victim notified the authorities shortly after the alleged attack. Storm was arrested while walking home from the victim's residence at between 4:00 and 4:30 a.m. Initially, he was arrested and taken into custody pursuant to two outstanding traffic court warrants for failure to pay traffic court fines.

At the Ada County jail, the authorities advised Storm that he was a suspect in an alleged rape and questioned him regarding

Page 1030

[112 Idaho 719] the incident. Storm initially denied having had sexual contact with the victim, but later admitted to such contact, claiming it was consensual. He then was released following arraignment on the traffic matters.

At approximately 1:30 p.m. on the same day, Storm was formally arrested at his home on the charge of rape. The arresting officers asked Storm to talk to them outside. The arresting officers had no warrant for Storm's arrest; they also testified that no exigency required that they arrest Storm prior to obtaining a warrant. An Ada County prosecuting attorney had authorized a "probable cause" arrest.

Authorities again transported Storm to the Ada County jail where he was interrogated a second time. After being advised of his constitutional rights, Storm asked for an attorney. Officer Sprague testified that Storm subsequently made some spontaneous admissions. Storm claims that the questioning continued after his request for an attorney.

A preliminary hearing was held on June 16 and trial started on July 22. During the five-week period between the preliminary hearing and the trial, counsel for Storm made no pretrial motions to suppress the statements he made to police officers.

In his deposition, Storm's trial counsel stated that he conducted no investigation into the alleged victim's character and reputation for chastity and veracity. At trial, the victim testified that Storm forcibly raped her; he testified that she consented to sexual intercourse. Storm's trial counsel further testified that "I didn't investigate the victim's background, and in hindsight that would have been a good idea."

At trial, the interrogating police officers testified regarding the inconsistent statements Storm had made at the time of his arrest and interrogations. The state used these inconsistent statements to impeach Storm. Counsel for Storm made no objection to the use of these statements.

Storm's counsel believed that Storm needed to testify in his own defense. In his deposition, Storm's counsel noted that Storm was a "terrible witness." As a consequence of his testifying, it was revealed that Storm was on a felony probation. Trial counsel previously had believed Storm to have a "winnable" case.

Storm's counsel admitted no evidence on the victim's previous sexual conduct. His motion in limine to cross-examine the victim and offer other evidence on her previous sexual conduct was denied by the court.

At his deposition, trial counsel testified that the sentence Storm received was far too severe.

After Storm's conviction, his counsel filed no appeal. In his deposition, Storm testified that he asked his counsel to file an appeal, but his counsel indicated that there were no grounds for an appeal. Storm's counsel testified that when such defendants requested appeals they were routinely filed, that he could not recall a conversation with Storm about an appeal, and that he had believed there to be no grounds for an appeal on Storm's behalf.

On appeal, Storm argues his constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel were violated by his trial counsel's alleged failures (1) to investigate the victim's character and reputation and to present impeaching evidence, (2) to file a motion to suppress or challenge the admissibility of Storm's statements made during custodial interrogations, (3) to object to allegedly prejudicial and inadmissible testimony offered by the state, and (4) to file an appeal. After briefly discussing the appropriate standard for review, we will address these arguments in turn.


In the recent companion cases of Paradis v. State, 110 Idaho 534, 536, 716 P.2d 1306, 1308 (1986), and Gibson v. State, 110 Idaho 631, 634-35, 718 P.2d 283, 286-87 (1986), we discussed the standard for review both for petitions for post-conviction relief in general and for such petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. We incorporate those discussions by reference, with the following additional comments.

Page 1031

[112 Idaho 720] As noted in Paradis, petitions for post-conviction relief are civil proceedings governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. 110 Idaho at 536, 716 P.2d at 1308; I.C. 19-4907(a) (1979). The petitioner for post-conviction relief must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is entitled to relief. Clark v. State, 92 Idaho 827, 830, 452 P.2d 54, 57 (1969); Holmes v. State, 104 Idaho 312, 313, 658 P.2d 983, 984 (Ct.App.1983).

Where the district court decides after an evidentiary hearing as provided in I.C. § 19-4907 (1979), rather than summarily as provided in I.C. § 19-4906 (1979), the evidence must be "viewed most favorably to the trial court's findings...." Estes v. State, 111 Idaho 430, 434, 725 P.2d 135, 139 (1986). Findings supported by competent and substantial evidence produced at the hearing will not be disturbed on appeal. Holmes, supra, 104 Idaho at 313, 658 P.2d at 984 (citing, inter alia, Lipps v. State, 94 Idaho 185, 484 P.2d 734 (1971)).

In this case,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Pratt, s. 18424
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • July 27, 1993 to deprive him or her of a fair trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984); Storm v. State, 112 Idaho 718, 735 P.2d 1029 (1987); Estes v. State, 111 Idaho 430, 725 P.2d 135 (1986). To establish deficient performance, a defendant must show that "c......
  • Amin v. State, 87-289
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 19, 1989
    ...record was developed for post-conviction petition from which the ineffectiveness argument is factually developed. Storm v. State, 112 Idaho 718, 735 P.2d 1029 (1987); Kraft v. State, 100 Idaho 671, 603 P.2d 1005 (1979); State v. Ruth, 98 Idaho 879, 574 P.2d 1357 (1978); State v. Tucker, 97 ......
  • State v. Mathews, No. 24604
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 15, 1999
    ...evidentiary hearing, rather than summarily, the evidence must be "`viewed most favorably to the trial court's findings.'" Storm v. State, 112 Idaho 718, 720, 735 P.2d 1029, 1031 (1987) (quoting Estes v. State, 111 Idaho 430, 434, 725 P.2d 135, 139 (1986)). Findings supported by competent an......
  • Pizzuto v. State, 32679.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 22, 2008
    ...Cause? "[P]etitions for post-conviction relief are civil proceedings governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure." Storm v. State, 112 Idaho 718, 720, 735 P.2d 1029, 1031 (1987). Rule 40(d)(1) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedures provides, "In all civil actions, the parties shall each ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT