Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Shoshone County. Hon. Fred M. Gibler, District Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gratton, Judge
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 402
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order of the district court denying motion to reconsider order denying petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Michael T. Hayes, Sr. appeals from the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his post-conviction petition. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
Hayes was charged with one count of lewd conduct with a minor under the age of sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508, two counts of providing alcohol to a minor, I.C. § 23-603, and one count of providing tobacco to a minor, I.C. § 39-5705. These charges arose after authorities were informed that Hayes was involved in a sexual relationship with a victim who was fifteen years old. The victim first told police that she was sexually abused by her stepfather. Later, the victim changed her account and claimed that she was sexually involved with Hayes.
A jury found Hayes guilty of all charges. The district court imposed a unified term of forty years with twenty years determinate for the lewd conduct conviction and concurrent unified terms of six months for two counts of dispensing alcohol to a minor along with one count of distributing tobacco to a minor. Hayes appealed the judgment of conviction and this Court affirmed in State v. Hayes, Docket Nos. 30574 and 30591 (Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2006) (unpublished).
Subsequently, Hayes filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The district court denied his motion and he appealed. This Court affirmed the district court's decision in State v. Hayes, Docket No. 35482 (Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2010) (unpublished). Prior to the determination of his motion for new trial, Hayes filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. The matter was stayed pending the outcome of Hayes' motion for a new trial. After the motion was denied, the district court appointed post-conviction counsel who amended Hayes' petition. Following the appointment of counsel, however, Hayes continued to file pro se motions.
On April 21, 2009, the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Hayes' petition for post-conviction relief. During the hearing, Hayes notified the court that the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) took away his legal materials during transport and failed to return them to him. Hayes asserted that the legal materials included several exhibits he intended to admit as evidence during the evidentiary hearing. The district court ordered the materials returned. Hayes did not request a continuance and the hearing proceeded.
Hayes allegedly recovered his missing legal documents on May 12, 2009. Although still represented by counsel, on June 4, 2009, he provided prison authorities with a motion to augment the record with the exhibits he was missing at the time of the hearing. He also provided authorities with an affidavit that contained, as attachments, the exhibits he wanted the district court to consider. The motion, with the accompanying affidavit and exhibits, did not get filed until June 10, 2009. However, one day prior, on June 9, 2009, the district court denied post- conviction relief.
On June 16, 2009, Hayes filed a notice of appeal. On July 17, 2009, he filed with the district court a pro se motion to reconsider the denial of his post-conviction petition, arguing that the court was unable to consider his exhibits as they were not filed until the day after the court's order denying relief. The district court did not rule on the motion because the motion was never noticed for hearing.
On appeal from the order denying post-conviction relief, Hayes asserted several arguments, including that the district court erred in failing to rule on his motion to reconsider. This Court affirmed the district court's denial of Hayes' post-conviction petition in Hayes v. State, Docket No. 36637 (Ct. App. Apr. 22, 2011) (unpublished), but did not address the district court's failure to rule on the motion to reconsider because the district court had not made an adverse ruling. Thereafter, Hayes filed a motion ...