2014 Opinion No. 34
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
This decision is not final until exception of the 21 day petition for rehearing period. Pursuant to rule 118 of the Idaho Appellate Rules
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.
Judgment summarily dismissing 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; Nicole L. Schafer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
MELANSON, Judge. Judge GRATTON, CONCURS. Judge LANSING, DISSENTING IN PART.
Woodrow John Grant appeals from the district court's summary dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
In 2006, Grant pled guilty to aggravated battery. He successfully completed a period of retained jurisdiction and the district court placed Grant on probation. In 2009, the state charged Grant with possession of a controlled substance, domestic battery, aggravated assault, and unlawful possession of a firearm. Grant pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and domestic battery. Grant also admitted to violating his probation. The district court sentenced Grant to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, for domestic battery and a concurrent unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance. The district court also revoked Grant's probation and executed his previously suspended sentence for aggravated battery (a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years). The 2009 sentences were to be served consecutively to the 2006 sentence. Grant appealed and the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed his judgments of conviction and sentences. State v. Grant, 154 Idaho 281, 288, 297 P.3d 244, 251 (2013).
In February 2011, Grant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Grant alleged ineffective assistance of counsel in the underlying cases stemming from multiple incidents. Grant also filed a motion and affidavit in support of the appointment of counsel. The state did not file an answer to Grant's petition. The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to I.C. § 19-4906. The district court also denied Grant's request for the assistance of counsel. Grant filed a motion to amend his petition and a response to the district court's notice of intent to dismiss. The district court denied the motion to amend and dismissed Grant's petition. Grant filed a motion for reconsideration and the district court denied this motion as well. Grant appeals.
A. Due Process Right to Post-Conviction Counsel
Grant argues that there is a federal and state due process right to an attorney in an initial post-conviction proceeding. Grant's argument relies heavily upon the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Martinez v. Ryan,
__ U.S. __, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). The state responds that this issue is unresolved by the United States Supreme ...