2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 302
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John R. Stegner, District Judge.
Order dismissing successive petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
James Timothy Haas, Boise, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Daphne J. Huang, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
James Timothy Haas appeals from the district court's order dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In 1999, a jury found Haas guilty of sexual battery of a minor child, sixteen or seventeen years of age. I.C. § 18-1508A. The district court sentenced Haas to a unified term of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of nine years. Haas filed an inmate request form expressing his desire to appeal and requesting legal assistance in filing such appeal. Despite this request being forwarded to the public defender's office, no appeal was filed. Haas then filed an I.C.R. 35 motion and his first petition for post-conviction relief. The same counsel was appointed to represent Haas in both the motion and the petition.
Haas and the state reached an agreement whereby his I.C.R. 35 motion would be determined on its merits following a hearing and the post-conviction petition would be dismissed. After a hearing on the I.C.R. 35 motion, the district court modified Haas's sentence to a unified term of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years.
Seven years later, Haas filed a second petition for post-conviction relief asserting, as one ground for relief, ineffective assistance of counsel due to the failure to file an appeal. The district court conducted an evidentiary hearing and thereafter dismissed the petition. The district court based its decision upon I.C. § 19-4908, finding that Haas failed to demonstrate why his claims were inadequately raised in his first petition for post-conviction relief. Haas did not appeal.
Fifteen months later, Haas filed his third petition for post-conviction relief, which forms the basis of this appeal. The petition again asserted ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file the appeal. The petition also asserted deficiencies by counsel at trial, regarding the I.C.R. 35 motion, and in the first post-conviction petition. The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss as untimely and allowed Haas forty days to respond. Haas responded, arguing there is no time limitation for successive petitions and that Martinez v. Ryan, U.S., 132 S.Ct. 1309 (2012) allows his claim to proceed. The state replied, asserting the petition should be dismissed as barred under I.C. § 19-4908 and because of res judicata. Haas filed a ...