Bracali-Gambino v. State

537 P.3d 21

Guy BRACALI-GAMBINO, Petitioner-Appellant,

v.STATE of Idaho, Respondent.

Docket No. 50430

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2023 Term.

Opinion Filed: September 11, 2023

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant, Guy Bracali-Gambino. Sally J. Cooley argued.

Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent, State of Idaho. Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.

STEGNER, Justice.

In 2017, Guy Bracali-Gambino pleaded guilty to possession of major contraband in a correctional facility in violation of Idaho Code section 18-2510(3). On direct appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, affirmed his conviction and sentence. State v. Bracali-Gambino , No. 45885, 2018 WL 6616256, at *1 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2018). Bracali-Gambino subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, asserting in relevant part that his trial counsel had coerced him into pleading guilty, provided erroneous legal advice regarding sentencing enhancements for persistent violators, and failed to investigate the prosecution's evidence. Bracali-Gambino contended, that considering these errors, his trial counsel had been ineffective. Except for a portion of one of Bracali-Gambino's claims (Claim II), the district court summarily dismissed his claims relevant to this appeal without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The district court also ultimately dismissed the one remaining claim following an evidentiary hearing.

Bracali-Gambino appealed the summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief, which the Idaho Court of Appeals also affirmed. Bracali-Gambino v. State , No. 48632, 2022 WL 3909358, at *1 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2022). Bracali-Gambino then petitioned this Court for review, which we granted. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Bracali-Gambino's petition for post-conviction relief.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2016, while incarcerated in the Ada County Jail, Bracali-Gambino was charged with a violation of Idaho Code section 18-2510(3) for allegedly "grind[ing] a plastic jail-issued spoon into a sharp, pointed weapon." Section 18-2510(3) provides that "[n]o person including a prisoner, except as authorized by law or with permission of the facility head, shall knowingly ... [p]ossess, or attempt to possess, major contraband within a correctional facility[.]" After consulting with his attorney, Bracali-Gambino pleaded guilty. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than one year and not more than five years. On direct appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed Bracali-Gambino's conviction and sentence. Bracali-Gambino , 2018 WL 6616256, at *1.

While his direct appeal was pending, Bracali-Gambino filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief in district court. The district court "dismissed [his petition] without prejudice because the direct appeal was pending." On March 14, 2019, several months after the Court of Appeals issued its decision on his direct appeal, Bracali-Gambino filed a verified amended petition for post-conviction relief. This time he was represented by the Ada County Public Defender's Office. Relevant to this appeal, Bracali-Gambino asserted that his trial counsel had provided ineffective assistance by: (1) coercing Bracali-Gambino into pleading guilty (Claim II); (2) providing Bracali-Gambino with incorrect legal advice regarding the persistent violator statute, Idaho Code section 19-2514 (Claim III); and (3) failing to interview two pro-defense witnesses, Anthony Prichard¹ and Tracy Smith (Claim VI).

On December 20, 2019, the district court notified the parties that it intended to summarily dismiss Bracali-Gambino's petition in its entirety. The district court stated that Bracali-Gambino's claims were either "disproved by the record" or that he had failed to "allege a claim upon which relief [could] be granted." Bracali-Gambino filed a response that included affidavits from Prichard, Smith, and himself. The district court then dismissed all claims relevant to this appeal except for Claim II, which was dismissed only in part. The district court found that "an evidentiary hearing [was] appropriate on the portion of Claim II related to counsel's statement(s) as to the likelihood of success on appeal only." An evidentiary hearing was subsequently held on Claim II, after which the district court dismissed the remaining portion of Claim II.

Bracali-Gambino appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. His appeal was assigned to the Idaho Court of Appeals, which affirmed the dismissal. Bracali-Gambino, 2022 WL 3909358, at *1. Bracali-Gambino petitioned this Court for review, which we granted.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

"When reviewing a case on petition for review from the Court of Appeals this Court gives due consideration to the decision reached by the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the trial court." State v. Gonzales , 165 Idaho 667, 671, 450 P.3d 315, 319 (2019) (quoting State v. Schmierer , 159 Idaho 768, 770, 367 P.3d 163, 165 (2016) ). This Court freely reviews the summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief. See Thumm v. State , 165 Idaho 405, 412, 447 P.3d 853, 860 (2019).

An application for post-conviction relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act (UPCPA) is civil in nature. Stuart v. State , 136 Idaho 490, 495, 36 P.3d 1278, 1282 (2001). Like a plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant for post-conviction relief must prove by a preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the application for post-conviction relief is based. Grube v. State , 134 Idaho 24, 995 P.2d 794 (2000). Unlike the complaint in an ordinary civil action, however, an application for post-conviction relief must contain 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, an application for post-conviction relief must be verified with respect to facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant. I.C. § 19–4903. The application must include affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting its allegations, or must state why such supporting evidence is not included. Id.

Summary disposition of a petition for post-conviction relief is appropriate if the applicant's evidence raises no genuine issue of material fact. I.C. § 19-4906(b), (c). On review of a dismissal of a post-conviction relief application without an evidentiary hearing, this Court will determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists based on the pleadings, depositions and admissions together with any affidavits on file and will liberally construe the facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Gilpin-Grubb v. State , 138 Idaho 76, 80, 57 P.3d 787, 791 (2002), citing LaBelle v. State , 130 Idaho 115, 118, 937 P.2d 427, 430 (Ct. App. 1997). A court is required to accept the petitioner's unrebutted allegations as true, but need not accept the petitioner's conclusions. Ferrier v. State , 135 Idaho 797, 799, 25 P.3d 110, 112 (2001). When the alleged facts, even if true, would not entitle the applicant to relief, the trial court may dismiss the application without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Stuart v. State , 118 Idaho 865, 869, 801 P.2d 1216, 1220 (1990), citing Cooper v. State , 96 Idaho 542, 545, 531 P.2d 1187, 1190 (1975). Allegations contained in the application are insufficient for the granting of relief when (1) they are clearly disproved by the record of the original proceedings, or (2) do not justify relief as a matter of law. Id.

Charboneau v. State , 144 Idaho 900, 903, 174 P.3d 870, 873 (2007).

III. ANALYSIS

On appeal, Bracali-Gambino asserts that the district court erred in dismissing three of his post-conviction claims. Specifically, he argues that the district court should not have dismissed his claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) coercing him into pleading guilty; (2) providing incorrect legal advice regarding the persistent violator statute; and (3) failing to investigate two witnesses.

Relevant to the three claims at issue here, this Court "review[s] claims for ineffective assistance of counsel utilizing the two-prong test set forth in Strickland v. Washington [.]" State v. Payne , 146 Idaho 548, 561, 199 P.3d 123, 136 (2008) (citing Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ).

To prevail on such a claim, the applicant for post-conviction relief must demonstrate (1) counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, the result would have been different. When evaluating an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, this Court does not second-guess strategic and tactical decisions, and such decisions cannot serve as a basis for post-conviction relief unless the decision is shown to have resulted from inadequate preparation, ignorance of the relevant law or other shortcomings capable of objective review. There is a strong presumption that counsel's performance fell within the wide range of professional assistance.

Id. (quoting State v. Hairston , 133 Idaho 496, 511, 988 P.2d 1170, 1185 (1999) ) (internal quotation marks and remaining citations omitted).

"This Court applies the Strickland test when determining whether a defendant has received ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea process." Booth v. State , 151 Idaho 612, 617, 262 P.3d 255, 260 (2011). "Before deciding whether to plead guilty, a defendant is entitled to ‘the effective assistance of competent counsel.’ " Id. (quoting Padilla v. Kentucky , 559 U.S. 356, 364, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010) ). "To establish prejudice resulting from his or her attorney's performance, a defendant must show that as a result of counsel's deficient performance there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's...