Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Macik v. Blades

United States District Court, D. Idaho

January 11, 2017

RONALD LEE MACIK, Petitioner,
v.
RANDY BLADES, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          Edward J. Lodge United States District Judge.

         This habeas corpus action has been reopened after remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Currently pending before the Court is Petitioner Ronald Lee Macik's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 3.) Respondent has filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that Petitioner's claims are barred by the one-year statute of limitations and are procedurally defaulted. (Dkt. 29.) The Motion is now ripe for adjudication. Several other motions are also pending. (Dkt. 28, 33, 34, 38, & 40.)

         The Court takes judicial notice of the records from Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 27.) See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006).

         Having carefully reviewed the record, including the state court record, the Court finds that the parties have adequately presented the facts and legal arguments in the briefs and record and that oral argument is unnecessary. See D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the following Order granting the Motion and dismissing this case with prejudice.

         BACKGROUND

         The facts of the case underlying Petitioner's conviction are set forth clearly and accurately in State v. Powers, 537 P.2d 1369 (Idaho 1975), the decision on appeal from the conviction of one of Petitioner's co-defendants. (See also State's Lodging F-11 at 2 (quoting the Powers decision).) The facts will not be repeated here except as necessary to explain the Court's decision.

         In 1972, Petitioner pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. (State's Lodging A-1 at 10-12.) There is no record of a direct appeal.[1]

         In 1994, Petitioner filed his first federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. See Macik v. Brennan, Case No. 1:94-cv-00503-BLW. That petition was dismissed, and Petitioner did not appeal.

         Petitioner filed a second federal habeas petition in 2008, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Macik v. Hardison, Case No. 1:08-cv-00360-EJL. Petitioner did not appeal. Over four-and-a-half years later, Petitioner filed a motion to reopen, which was denied. Again, Petitioner did not appeal.

         Petitioner did not take any action in state court to challenge his conviction until nearly forty years after his conviction. On March 14, 2011, Petitioner sent a letter to the state trial court, which construed the letter as a motion to withdraw Petitioner's guilty plea. (State's Lodging A-1 at 13-18.) The state district court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction, because the motion was filed long after the judgment of conviction became final. (Id. at 31-32.) The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review. (State's Lodging B-4, B-6.)

         Petitioner filed his first petition for state post-conviction relief in July 2012. (State's Lodging C-1 at 3-9.) The state district court dismissed the petition as untimely pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-4902. (Id. at 29-32.) The Idaho Court of Appeals reversed and remanded because the trial court had not provided Petitioner with the required twenty-day period before dismissing the petition. (State's Lodging D-4.) Following the remand, the trial court again dismissed the petition because it was untimely. (State's Lodging G-1 at 41-51, 77-88.) The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review. (State's Lodging H-3, H-6.)

         By this point, Petitioner had litigated a second petition for post-conviction relief.[2]The state district court dismissed the petition pursuant to Idaho's successive petitions bar, found in Idaho Code § 19-4908, because Petitioner had not shown a sufficient reason why the claims could not have been included in the first post-conviction petition. (State's Lodging E-1 at 251-56.)

         Petitioner filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, at the earliest, on June 17, 2015.[3] The Court has construed the Petition as asserting the following claims:

Claim 1(a): Petitioner was deprived of his right to be free from compelled self-incrimination.
Claim 1(b): Petitioner's guilty plea was involuntary.
Claim 1(c): The prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence.
Claim 2: Petitioner was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of trial counsel.
Claim 3(b): There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.
Claim 3(b): Petitioner is actually innocent.
Claim 4: Petitioner was deprived of his right to due process and equal protection because he was denied access to documents in his criminal case.

(Dkt. 3, 25.)[4]

         Petitioner was allowed to proceed on his claims to the extent those claims “(1) are cognizable in a federal habeas corpus action, (2) were timely filed in this Court, and (3) were either properly exhausted in state court or subject to a legal excuse for any failure to exhaust in a proper manner.” (Dkt. 25 at 2-3.)

         DISCUSSION

         1. Motions ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.