[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
2014 Opinion No. 31
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.
The district court's dismissal of Murray's petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Spencer Hahn argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Jessica Lorello argued.
HORTON, Justice. Chief Justice BURDICK and Justices EISMANN, J. JONES and W. JONES CONCUR.
[156 Idaho 162] HORTON, Justice.
Jeffrey Dane Murray appeals from the district court's order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief after he pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence and was sentenced to three years fixed followed by seven years indeterminate. Murray's petition for post-conviction relief argued, among other things, that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective--an argument that he reasserts now on appeal. We affirm the district court's dismissal of Murray's petition for post-conviction relief.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2009, Murray was charged with felony attempted strangulation and misdemeanor battery. Subsequently, the district court held a pretrial conference on July 13, 2009. At the hearing, the State and Murray's trial counsel, Jared Martens, entered into plea negotiations. After a short discussion, Martens represented to the court that the parties had reached an agreement. Under the parties' agreement, Murray agreed to plead guilty to a felony charge of domestic violence and to submit to a domestic violence evaluation. In exchange, the State agreed to dismiss a felony charge of attempted strangulation and a misdemeanor charge of battery and recommend a sentence of three years fixed followed by seven years indeterminate, suspended, and 120 days in jail. After hearing the parties' proposed agreement, the district judge questioned the parties:
The Court: Okay, is there an Estrada waiver?
Ms. Buttram: I believe so.
The Court: Well, I think there would have to be. I am not going to [accept the plea agreement] without an Estrada waiver.
Mr. Martens: Just a moment, let me talk to the prosecutor.
Mr. Martens: Yes, that's fine. He will waive, Your Honor.
The Court: Is that what you want to do, Mr. Murray?
The Defendant: Yes, ma'am.
The district court then took a recess to allow Murray to complete the court's Guilty Plea Advisory Form. Murray, with the help of Martens, then executed the Guilty Plea Advisory Form.
The Guilty Plea Advisory Form signed by Murray expressly references the rights outlined by this Court in Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 149 P.3d 833 (2006), stating:
I understand that by pleading guilty I am waiving my right to remain silent about the charge I am pleading guilty to both before and after trial.
The waiver of your right to remain silent only applies to your plea of guilty to the crimes(s) in this case unless you are waiving your rights under State v. Estrada [sic]. Unless you waive your rights under Estrada, even after pleading guilty, you will still have the right to refuse to answer any question or to provide any information that might tend to show you committed some other crime(s). You can also refuse to answer or provide information that might tend to increase the punishment for the crime(s) to which you are pleading.
I understand that by pleading guilty to the crimes(s) in this case, I still have the right to remain silent with respect to any other crimes(s) and with respect to answering questions or ...