Araiza v. State

552 P.3d 626

Rodney ARAIZA Petitioner-Appellant,

v.STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Docket No. 51046

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, May 2024 Term.

Opinion Filed: July 15, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County. Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge.

The appeal is dismissed.

Erik Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, attorneys for Appellant. Sally Cooley argued.

Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General, Boise, attorneys for Respondent. Kenneth Jorgensen argued.

BEVAN, Chief Justice.

This case comes to the Court on a petition for review from the Idaho Court of Appeals. After Rodney Araiza was convicted of first-degree murder and participating in a riot, he filed a post-conviction petition alleging actual innocence and requesting DNA and fingerprint testing. The district court summarily dismissed Araiza’s petition, finding that DNA test results would not make it more likely that Araiza is innocent, and Araiza’s remaining claim was barred by res judicata. The district court entered a final judgment on September 11, 2020. Araiza did not receive notice of that judgment until after the time to appeal had passed. Five months after learning his petition for post-conviction relief was summarily dismissed, Araiza filed a motion for relief from judgment under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6). Following a stipulation between Araiza and the State, the district court reentered judgment. Araiza appealed from the reentered judgment, which was later dismissed by the Court of Appeals. He then petitioned this Court for review. For the reasons below, we dismiss Araiza’s appeal as untimely.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

On September 25, 1988, prisoners rioted at the Idaho State Penitentiary and an inmate named Richard Holmes was stabbed to death in his cell. Multiple inmates were alleged to have participated in Holmes’ killing, including Rodney Araiza. Araiza was ultimately charged with first-degree murder and riot.

A. The Trial

At his trial, the State presented evidence that Araiza, along with other prisoners, became violent and took over the Idaho State Correctional Institution. The inmates destroyed furniture, started fires, and broke down doors and walls. The State’s evidence suggested that Araiza and other prisoners broke into Holmes’ cell and stabbed him to death. The State called several correctional officers and inmates who testified about Araiza’s participation in the riot and that Araiza was in Holmes’ cell during the time of the murder. The State elicited testimony from inmates that Araiza admitted to killing Holmes. In an audio recording from the State, the jury heard Holmes plead for his life with an inmate named "Shorty." The State offered evidence that Araiza was the only inmate in that unit known as "Shorty." The State also presented evidence that Araiza’s bloody palm prints were in Holmes’ cell.

In his defense, Araiza called several inmates to testify that he was not near Holmes’ cell during the murder, but instead, arrived after Holmes was dead. Araiza testified that he entered Holmes’ cell after the murder to see if Holmes was all right. One inmate, Merle LaMere, testified at trial that Araiza did not commit the murder, but LaMere asserted the Fifth Amendment when asked whether he had killed Holmes. Araiza also presented evidence that other inmates also go by the nickname "Shorty." On June 23, 1989, a jury convicted Araiza of both charges.

B. Motion for New Trial

After his conviction, Araiza filed a motion for a new trial, claiming new evidence relevant to his case had been discovered. During the hearing on Araiza’s motion, a prison volunteer chaplain named Paul Bull testified that LaMere confessed that he, along with two other inmates named Jon Sjogren and Darrell Clarke, killed Holmes and that Araiza had "nothing to do with" the murder. Four inmate witnesses also testified at this hearing on the motion for new trial, three of whom had testified in Araiza’s defense at his murder trial. During Araiza’s trial, these inmates testified to seeing people other than Araiza enter Holmes’ cell during the riot, but they refused to identify the inmates for fear of their lives. However, during the hearing on the motion for a new trial these inmates collectively identified LaMere, Sjogren, and Clarke as the inmates who entered Holmes’ cell before his death, exiting with bloody clothing and weapons. In addition, the defense submitted affidavits from five jurors at Araiza’s trial. The jurors generally expressed that they did not feel that the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Araiza was the person who physically stabbed Holmes and that others involved should be prosecuted. Importantly, however, the jurors also stated that they returned a guilty verdict because they believed Araiza had aided and abetted the murder.

On October 27, 1989, the district court denied the motion for a new trial. The decision noted that the

State’s theory of the case and the evidence presented to the jury showed that Mr. Araiza was one of a number of people involved in the riot and in the killing of Mr. Holmes. The jury was fully advised both by the State’s witness and by the defendant’s witnesses that other people were involved. The names of some of those persons were suggested to the jury during the course of the trial. The defendant’s witnesses testified at trial that Mr. Araiza had no involvement whatsoever in the riot and the murder. The jury did not believe those witnesses and convicted Mr. Araiza. Now the defendant has presented additional evidence of the names [of] the other persons involved.

The district court found that the inmate witnesses were not credible as their testimony had changed. As for Bull’s testimony on LaMere’s confession, the court noted that LaMere testified at trial that Araiza had nothing to do with the murder and pleaded the Fifth when asked about his own involvement in the murder. The district court found that a jury did not believe LaMere the first time and would likely not believe him a second time. Thus, the district court concluded that the defense’s newly discovered evidence was not likely to result in an acquittal. Araiza was then sentenced to life imprisonment with 35 years fixed for first-degree murder and to 20 years fixed for riot, with both sentences to be served concurrently.

In April 1990, LaMere was charged with first-degree murder for Holmes’ death. Three months later, LaMere gave an interview to The Idaho Statesman. In a published article, he stated that he lied to Bull, he was innocent of murder, and he only confessed to help Araiza. All the same, he subsequently pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. LaMere again changed his story to the presentence investigator and stated he helped break into Holmes’ cell but did not stab him. Following the imposition of LaMere’s sentence, Araiza filed a Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which was denied. He also pursued a direct appeal. On direct appeal, Araiza argued, among other things, that the district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial. This Court disagreed, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial. State v. Araiza, 124 Idaho 82, 94, 856 P.2d 872, 884 (1993).

C. Petition for Post-Conviction Relief

On October 7, 2019, Araiza petitioned for post-conviction relief based on actual innocence and requested DNA and fingerprint testing. The district court appointed counsel and on February 21, 2020, Araiza filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief setting forth two claims: (1) a request for DNA testing under Idaho Code section 19-4902(b) on eleven items introduced at the trial; and (2) a request to vacate his conviction and sentence due to newly discovered evidence. Araiza supported his petition with an affidavit from LaMere, in which LaMere declared he killed Holmes, and that Araiza was not involved with the murder.

The State moved for summary disposition, asserting DNA testing was unwarranted because, even if the DNA on the items belonged to a third party, that evidence would not make it more probable than not that Araiza is innocent, and LaMere’s affidavit did not provide "newly discovered evidence." Araiza filed no response or opposing materials. A hearing was held and the district court summarily dismissed Araiza’s petition in September 2020.

In April 2021, Araiza moved for relief from the judgment under Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and (b)(6). In his supporting declaration, Araiza stated that he had asked his attorney in October 2020 if the district court had ruled on his amended petition for post-conviction relief, but he did not receive a copy of the court’s order until November 12, 2020—almost three weeks after the time to appeal had expired. Araiza also detailed the steps he took to determine whether he had missed any correspondence from his attorney through the prison mail system, culminating in a mailroom memorandum that he received on March 16, 2021, showing that he did not receive the order until November 12.

Araiza was appointed counsel who stipulated with the State to reenter the district court’s judgment to resolve Araiza’s Rule 60(b) motion. The district court reentered judgment on December 20, 2021, entitling the document as an "amended judgment." The same day, Araiza filed a notice of appeal from the reentered judgment. The Idaho Court of Appeals dismissed Araiza’s appeal after concluding it was untimely. Araiza filed a petition for review, which this Court granted.

II. Standards of Review

[1] "When addressing a petition for review, this Court will give ‘serious consideration to the views of the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the lower court.’ " Rodriquez v. Stale, 171 Idaho 634, 641, 524 P.3d 913, 920 (2023) (quoting Marr v. State, 163 Idaho 33, 36, 408 P.3d 31, 34 (2017)).

[2–4] "The interpretation of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure is a...