2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 766
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael R. McLaughlin, District Judge.
Order denying petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Lawrence Joseph Olson appeals from the district court's second order denying his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Olson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence and being a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Olson to a unified life term, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years, to run concurrently with an unrelated sentence. Olson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Olson appealed and this Court affirmed his judgment of conviction and sentence in State v. Olson, Docket No. 35049 (Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2008) (unpublished).
Thereafter, Olson filed a petition for post-conviction relief and a motion for appointment of counsel. The State filed an answer to the petition but did not request summary dismissal. The district court dismissed the petition but allowed twenty days for Olson to file an amended petition regarding an ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The district court did not rule on Olson's motion for appointment of counsel and did not provide Olson with the required notice of intent to dismiss. Olson filed a first amended petition for post-conviction relief, to which the State responded with a motion for summary dismissal. Olson filed a response and again requested appointment of counsel, which the district court granted. The district court then granted the State's motion for summary dismissal as to all but one claim. The district court again allowed twenty days for Olson to file an amended petition with more specificity as to the claim that defense counsel failed to inform him of his right to remain silent in relation to sentencing. Olson, through appointed counsel, then filed a second amended petition for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of counsel. His second amended petition was denied following an evidentiary hearing.
Olson appealed, claiming that the district court erred by failing to rule on his motion for appointment of counsel before ruling on the merits of his original petition and by failing to provide notice of its intent to dismiss his original petition. Olson also claimed that the district court erred by dismissing two of the claims in his first amended petition on grounds other than those asserted by the State in its motion for summary dismissal. This Court affirmed the order granting partial summary dismissal of the first amended petition, but reversed the order dismissing the original petition and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Subsequently, Olson again requested the appointment of counsel to represent him in his original petition, which the district court granted. At the scheduling hearing, appointed counsel requested ninety days to prepare for an evidentiary hearing. The district court denied the request and scheduled an evidentiary hearing forty-three days later. Following the evidentiary hearing, ...