Baker v. State

DONALD VICTOR BAKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.

Docket No. 41614

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 471

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

April 17, 2015

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

Order of the district court summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.

Donald Victor Baker, Boise, pro se appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

____________________

GUTIERREZ, Judge

Donald Victor Baker appeals from the district court's order summarily dismissing his post-conviction petition. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Baker sold methamphetamine to a confidential informant (C.I.) working in cooperation with the Idaho State Police. The transaction was recorded and was also observed by officers. He was charged with trafficking in methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4). In a separate case, Baker was charged with possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. He was also charged with being a persistent violator in both cases. On the morning his trial on the trafficking charge was to commence, Baker entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead guilty to the trafficking charge, and the State agreed to dismiss the possession charge andpersistent violator enhancements. Additionally, the State was permitted to argue the facts of the dismissed possession charge at sentencing and to seek restitution for the lab and investigative costs associated with the dismissed charge. Finally, the State agreed to recommend no more than a three-year determinate sentence for the trafficking conviction. Baker did not directly appeal his conviction or sentence.

Baker filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and later an amended petition, alleging various claims including ineffective assistance of trial counsel and Brady¹ violations. The district court denied his motion for appointment of counsel and various requests for discovery. After entering two separate notices of intent to dismiss, the district court granted the State's motion for summary dismissal. Baker now appeals.

II.ANALYSIS

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 section 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 andagreements 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).

As the State points out, Baker does not include the requisite statement of issues on appeal and the issues raised in his appellant's brief are somewhat difficult to ascertain. We agree with the State's summary of the issues:

[T]he state liberally construes Baker's Appellant's brief as challenging the district court's summary dismissal of the following claims: (1) His trial counsel was ineffective for (a) failing to investigate whether officers could have identified him in the environmental conditions present at the time of his arrest; (b) failing to obtain information that the C.I. who conducted the controlled drug buy had a pending criminal charge and an agreement with the state regarding his participation in Baker's case; (c) failing to challenge the restitution award and (d) coercing him into pleading guilty; and (2) the state committed Brady violations by: (a) failing to disclose the original audio recording of the controlled buy and instead disclosing only a redacted version; and (b) failing to disclose that the C.I. had a pending criminal charge and an agreement with the state to participate in Baker's case.

In addition, Baker asserts the district court erred by denying his requests for discovery following the filing of his post-conviction petition.²

A. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel may properly be brought under the 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). Where, as here, the petitioner was convicted upon a guilty plea, to satisfy the prejudice element the petitioner must show that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, he or she would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial. Plant v. State, 143 Idaho758, 762, 152 P.3d 629, 633 (Ct. App. 2006). This Court has long adhered to the proposition that tactical or strategic decisions of trial counsel will not be second-guessed on appeal unless those decisions are based on inadequate preparation, ignorance of relevant law, or other shortcomings capable of objective evaluation. Howard v. State, 126 Idaho 231, 233, 880 P.2d 261, 263 (Ct. App. 1994).

1. Failure to investigate

Baker contends his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to adequately investigate his case prior to the entry of his guilty plea. Specifically, he contends counsel failed to investigate whether officers, under the conditions...