Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dana Lydell Smith v. State of Idaho

May 14, 2013

DANA LYDELL SMITH,
PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO,
RESPONDENT.



Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minidoka County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gratton, Judge

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 493

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Order summarily dismissing successive petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.

Dana Lydell Smith appeals from the district court's summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURES

Smith was convicted of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403, 18-2407, for breaking into a car dealership and stealing two cars. He appealed and in an unpublished decision, this Court affirmed his conviction. State v. Smith, Docket Nos. 35216/35604 (Ct. App. May 20, 2009) (unpublished). The remittitur was issued on June 17, 2009. On July 7, 2008, while his direct appeal was still pending, Smith filed an application for post-conviction relief, asserting several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The State filed a motion for summary dismissal, which the district court granted. Smith appealed and in an unpublished decision, this Court affirmed the district court's decision. Smith v. State, Docket No. 37819 (Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2011) (unpublished).

On February 18, 2011, Smith filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief, in which he also requested appointed counsel. The district court denied his request for appointed counsel, noting that Smith's successive petition was untimely and therefore, frivolous. Smith filed a motion to clarify. In its order denying the motion to clarify, the district court explained that Smith was unable to provide a sufficient reason for filing a successive petition. The district court then announced its intent to dismiss Smith's petition for post-conviction relief and subsequently entered an order and a judgment summarily dismissing the petition. Smith filed a motion to alter or amend judgment and a motion for appointed counsel. The district court denied both motions. Smith timely appeals.

II.

ANALYSIS

Smith raises the following claims on appeal: (1) that the district court erred in summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief; (2) that the district court erred in denying his request for appointed counsel; (3) that the Idaho Supreme Court erred in allowing his appointed appellate counsel to withdraw; and (4) that the district court erred by not ordering a psychiatric ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.