United States District Court, D. Idaho
ROBERT E. PETERSON, Petitioner,
RANDY BLADES, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
J. Lodge United States District Judge.
before the Court is Petitioner Robert Ervin Peterson's
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (Dkt. 3.) Respondent has
filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, arguing that all of
Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted and that
some are noncognizable. (Dkt. 13.) Petitioner has not
responded to the Motion.
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 L. Civ. R. 7.1(d). Accordingly, the Court enters the
following Order granting the Motion and dismissing
Petitioner's claims with prejudice as procedurally
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 12.) See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b); Dawson v Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th
pleaded guilty in the Sixth Judicial District Court in
Bannock County, Idaho, to four counts of possession of
sexually exploitative material. He received an aggregate
unified sentence of ten years in prison with sex years fixed.
(State's Lodging B-6 at 1.) Petitioner filed a motion for
reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35, which the
trial court denied. (State's Lodging A-2, A-6 at 10.)
appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion
in sentencing Petitioner and in denying the Rule 35 motion.
(State's Lodging B-1, B-3.) The Idaho Court of Appeals
affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied review.
(State's Lodging B-6, B-9.)
later filed a second Rule 35 motion, arguing that he was not
informed of his right, established in Estrada v.
State, 149 P.3d 833 (Idaho 2006), to refuse to
participate in the court-ordered psychosexual evaluation.
(State's Lodging C-1 at 13-16.) Petitioner's motion
was granted, and the trial court ordered a new sentencing
hearing before a different judge. (Id. at 32-35.)
resentencing, Petitioner moved to disqualify the new judge.
This motion was denied. (Id. at 37-40.) Petitioner
also moved to withdraw his guilty pleas, asserting that the
state violated the plea agreement, that Petitioner's
trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, that the
guilty pleas were invalid, and that Petitioner was actually
innocent. (Id. at 52-53, 58-66.) This motion was
denied after the resentencing hearing, and Petitioner was
resentenced to an aggregate unified sentence of twenty years
in prison with four years fixed. (Id. at 73-75.)
Petitioner filed another Rule 35 motion, which was denied.
(Id. at 89.)
appealed, arguing that (1) the trial court should have
allowed him to withdraw his guilty pleas because the plea was
not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, (2) the initial
sentencing judge should not have elicited the first motion
for disqualification from Petitioner, (3) the resentencing
judge should have granted Petitioner's second motion to
disqualify, and (4) Petitioner's due process rights were
violated when resentencing resulted in a higher sentence.
(State's Lodging D-1, D-3.)
Idaho Court of Appeals held that the initial order vacating
Petitioner's original sentence was void because the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to enter it. (State's Lodging
D-5 at 5.) The court of appeals reinstated Petitioner's
original sentence, affirmed the denial of Petitioner's
motion to withdraw his guilty plea, and held that all other
issues were moot. (Id. at 5-7.) The Idaho Supreme
Court denied review. (State's Lodging D-8.)
later filed a petition for state post-conviction relief,
raising numerous claims. (State's Lodging E-1 at 10-54.)
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court dismissed
the petition. (Id. at 229-35; State's Lodging
E-3.) Petitioner appealed the dismissal, arguing-under Idaho
state law-that (1) the trial court was required to make
findings of fact and conclusions of law after the evidentiary
hearing, and (2) the state's motion for summary dismissal
was untimely. (State's Lodging F-2, F-4.)
Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. The court declined to
address Petitioner's arguments because Petitioner did not
preserve the issues for appeal. (State's Lodging F-5 at
2-3.) The Idaho Supreme Court denied review. (State's
instant federal habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts
the following claims:
Claim 1: The trial court lacked jurisdiction because
Petitioner was deprived of his state and federal
constitutional rights to a speedy trial.
Claim 2: The trial court lacked jurisdiction because of an
“improperly waived preliminary hearing.” Claim 3:
The trial court lacked jurisdiction “due to the
unconstitutional appointment of Judge McDermott.” Claim
4: The trial court failed to comply with the requirements of
Idaho Code § 19-2523.
Claim 5: The prosecutor committed misconduct by breaching the
Claim 6: The prosecutor committed misconduct by failing
“to fully disclose [the] nature of [the] charge.”
Claim 7: The prosecutor committed misconduct by failing
“to disclose fault of law.” Claim 8: The charging
statutes were unconstitutional.
Claim 9: Petitioner was denied his Sixth Amendment right to
the effective assistance of counsel based on trial
counsel's failure “to ...