RANDOLPH MARK SNOWBALL, aka MARK C. SNOWBALL, Petitioner-Appellant,
STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 784
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
Order summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Justin M. Curtis argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Russell J. Spencer argued.
Randolph Mark Snowball, a.k.a. Mark C. Snowball, appeals from the district court's order summarily dismissing his post-conviction petition. We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Snowball was convicted upon a jury verdict of intimidating a witness, Idaho Code § 18-2604(3). The district court imposed a unified term of two and one-half years with one year determinate, to run consecutive to a separate sentence he was already serving. Snowball appealed and his sentence and conviction were affirmed in State v. Snowball, Docket No. 36214 (Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2010) (unpublished). The Idaho Supreme Court denied Snowball's petition for review and a remittitur was entered on February 14, 2010.
On February 15, 2011, Snowball filed a petition for post-conviction relief asserting, in part, that he was actually innocent of the crime. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the petition was untimely. Snowball objected to the State's motion, arguing that his claim of actual innocence should entitle him to equitable tolling. The district court, noting that actual innocence had not been established as a ground for equitable tolling, granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that it was untimely. Snowball timely appeals.
Snowball argues that this Court should adopt actual innocence as a ground for tolling and remand this case to the district court for further proceedings. A petition for post-conviction relief initiates a civil, rather than criminal, proceeding, governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure. I.C. § 19-4907; State v. Yakovac, 145 Idaho 437, 443, 180 P.3d 476, 482 (2008). See also Pizzuto v. State, 146 Idaho 720, 724, 202 P.3d 642, 646 (2008). Idaho Code § 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of a petition for post-conviction relief, either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the court's own initiative, if "it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions and agreements of facts, together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.C. § 19-4906(c). When considering summary dismissal, the district court must construe disputed facts in the petitioner's favor, but the court is not required to accept ...