DENNIS E. ABBOTT, Petitioner-Appellant,
STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.
Order summarily dismissing successive petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Dennis E. Abbott, Boise, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Dennis E. Abbott appeals the summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We reviewed Abbott's procedural history in Abbott v. State, Docket No. 26370 (Ct. App. 2001) (unpublished) (footnote omitted) (Abbott II):
In 1986, Abbott pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor child under sixteen, I.C. § 18-1508, in Twin Falls County. See Abbott v. State, 129 Idaho 381, 924 P.2d 1225 (Ct. App. 1996) (herein also referred to as Abbott I). Abbott was initially sentenced to a term of life imprisonment, with the court retaining jurisdiction[, but Abbott's sentence was subsequently reduced to an indeterminate term of forty years]. In May 1995, Abbott filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the magistrate division of the Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County. The petition challenged the validity of Abbott's conviction, in part, based on his allegation that he lacked the capacity to understand the proceedings and to plead guilty due to mental disease and a psychotropic medication--Thorazine. The magistrate's dismissal of Abbott's petition was affirmed on appeal on the ground of improper venue. Id. at 386, 924 P.2d at 1230.
On October 2, 1996, Abbott filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief. The state filed a motion to dismiss based upon the running of the statute of limitations, I.C. § 19-4902. The district court appointed counsel for Abbott, and an evidentiary hearing was held on the issue of whether mental incapacity prevented Abbott from filing his UPCPA application within the applicable statute of limitations. Following the hearing, the district court granted the state's motion to dismiss Abbott's application as time barred.
We affirmed the district court's dismissal in Abbott II. We reasoned that although Abbott's mental disease tolled the time requirement until March 1995, he thereafter failed to timely file once the effects of the mental disease ended.
On May 21, 2012, Abbott filed a successive petition for post-conviction relief. The district court gave notice of its intent to dismiss on June 8, 2012. More than twenty days later, on July 3, the district court summarily dismissed Abbott's successive petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. Abbott subsequently filed an amended petition on July 5, and the district court filed an amended dismissal. Abbott also filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court denied. Abbott timely appealed.