United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill Chief Judge.
before the Court is Petitioner Jerry Leonard Ellis's
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, which challenges
two state court convictions of felony driving under the
influence (“DUI”). (Dkt. 35-1 at 1.) Respondent has
filed a Motion for Partial Summary Dismissal, which is now
ripe for adjudication. (Dkt. 39.) Respondent argues that most
of Petitioner's claims are procedurally defaulted, that
some are untimely, and that some are noncognizable. Also
pending are several other motions filed by the parties,
including Petitioner's motions to expand the record and
for an evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. 37, 42, 43, 47, 50.)
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 dismissing Claims 1, 2, and 6 through 22 as
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 16, 30.) See Fed. R.
Evid. 201(b); Dawson v. Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551
(9th Cir. 2006).
2006, in the First Judicial District in Kootenai County,
Idaho, Petitioner pleaded guilty to felony DUI (“first
DUI case”). (State's Lodging A-1 at 78-79.) He
received an indeterminate sentence of three and a half years.
However, the trial court suspended the sentence and placed
Petitioner on probation. (Id. at 90-94.)
the next two years, Petitioner committed multiple probation
violations resulting in the revocation of his probation.
However, the trial court retained jurisdiction and placed
Petitioner on a rider. (Id. at 179-81.) After
completion of the rider, Petitioner was again given
probation. (Id. at 187-94.)
2009, Petitioner was charged with another felony DUI
(“second DUI case”), to which he pleaded guilty.
(State's Lodging A-2 at 309-11.) Petitioner received a
unified sentence of 10 years in prison with five years fixed,
but the court retained jurisdiction and placed Petitioner on
a rider. (Id. at 323-27.) The charge in the second
DUI case resulted in a charge of probation violation in the
first DUI case, and Petitioner was placed on a rider for that
violation as well. (Id. at 320-22.) After completion
of the riders, Petitioner was again released on probation.
(Id. at 333-45.)
January 2011, Petitioner was charged with probation
violations in both cases, but instead of revoking probation,
the court increased the terms of probation and required that
Petitioner complete the mental health drug court program.
(Id. at 357-60, 409-14.)
Petitioner had still not learned his lesson. Not even a year
later, he again violated the terms of his probation, this
time by failing to comply with the rules of mental health
court and by driving without a license. (Id. at
439-41.) Petitioner completed yet another rider and was
placed back on probation in both cases. (Id. at
ongoing cycle of probation, violation, and retained
jurisdiction eventually came to an end. In 2013, Petitioner
was again charged with violating probation in both cases.
Petitioner, represented by a public defender, admitted one
violation and disputed another. (Id. at 538.) The
trial court denied Petitioner's request for a continuance
so that he could retain private counsel. (Id. at
538-39.) After an evidentiary hearing on the contested
violation, the trial court found the violation proven.
Petitioner then asked to continue the disposition hearing so
that he could call witnesses to testify on his behalf.
(Id. at 539.) The court denied Petitioner's
request-but accepted his offer of proof as true-and
immediately proceeded to disposition. (Id. at
539-40.) The court revoked Petitioner's probation and
imposed the underlying sentences. (Id. at 540-41.)
appealed the disposition in both cases, which had been
consolidated. Petitioner argued that the trial court erred by
(1) denying Petitioner's first request for a continuance
so he could retain private counsel, and (2) denying
Petitioner's second request for a continuance so he could
present witnesses. (State's Lodging B-1.) The Idaho Court
of Appeals affirmed, and the Idaho Supreme Court denied
review. (State's Lodging B-5, B-8.)
his direct appeal was pending, Petitioner filed a petition
for state post-conviction relief with respect to both DUI
convictions. (State's Lodging C-1 at 3-252.) Petitioner
was appointed counsel, who filed an amended petition.
(Id. at 256-64.) The trial court summarily dismissed
the petition, and Petitioner filed a notice of appeal.
(Id. at 268-310, 312-13.) However,
Petitioner-through post-conviction appellate counsel-
voluntarily dismissed the appeal. (State's Lodging D-4.)
Petitioner alleges that he did not consent to counsel's
filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal.
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner
asserts the following claims:
Claim 1: Petitioner was denied his Fourth Amendment right to
be free from unreasonable searches and seizures when his
blood was drawn without a warrant.
Claim 2: Petitioner's privately retained attorney
rendered ineffective assistance by (1) failing to investigate
the legality of Petitioner's arrest, (2) providing false
information and advice to Petitioner regarding the legality
of the blood draw, (3) falsely informing Petitioner regarding
the need for a warrant for the blood draw, (4) failing to
hold a preliminary hearing on the suppression issue, (5)
failing to file a motion to suppress, and (6) coercing
Petitioner into an involuntary and unintelligent guilty plea.
Claim 3: Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to retain
counsel of his choice was violated when his request for a
continuance was denied during his probation revocation
Claim 4: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when the state trial court failed to notice Petitioner's
disposition hearing in conjunction with his probation
revocation proceeding, resulting in Petitioner not having an
opportunity to prepare a full and proper defense.
Claim 5: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when the trial court denied Petitioner's request for a
continuance of the revocation proceedings based on
Petitioner's lack of notice.
Claim 6: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when the trial court denied a continuance for the purpose of
obtaining a mental health evaluation of Petitioner.
Claim 7: Petitioner was denied adequate medical treatment
while Petitioner was in mental health court, in violation of
the Eighth Amendment, resulting in Petitioner' impulsive
behavior and subsequent incarceration.
Claim 8: Petitioner's state postconviction petition was
erroneously dismissed, resulting in manifest injustice.
Claim 9: Petitioner's public defender rendered
ineffective assistance by (1) failing to adequately
communicate with Petitioner, (2) failing to prepare a
successful defense, (3) failing to interview witnesses, (4)
failing to obtain expert testimony, (5) failing to prepare
for the March 21, 2013 hearing, (6) failing to deny the
allegations in that hearing, (7) failing to seek approval
from the court to obtain a mental health evaluation, (8)
failing to inform the court that Petitioner needed a
continuance for private counsel to prepare a defense, (9)
failing to explain the nature of the proceedings prior to the
March 21, 2013 hearing, (10) failing to “inform
Petitioner of the course of proceedings, ” (11) failing
to object to due process violations during the March 2013
hearing, (12) acting under a conflict of interest, (13)
failing to move to disqualify the judge, and (14) failing to
obtain a continuance of the hearing.
Claim 10: Petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were
violated when the court ordered the public defender to
represent Petitioner despite a conflict of interest based on
the public defender having been hired as a prosecutor.
Claim 11: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when the district court judge failed to recuse himself on the
grounds of judicial bias.
Claim 12: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when, during the March 2013 hearing, the court failed to
inform him of his “necessary hearing rights”
regarding the nature of pleas. This claim also appears to
implicate Petitioner's Fifth Amendment right to be free
from compelled self-incrimination.
Claim 13: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
because his plea was involuntary and unintelligent.
Claim 14: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
because he was suffering from mental health issues and
“medication instability” when he participated in
his probation revocation hearing.
Claim 15: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when he was prohibited from assert the defense of necessity
during his March 2013 hearing.
Claim 16: Petitioner's right to due process was violated
because his probation revocation proceeding, the disposition
of his motion to transport, and his Rule 35 proceedings were
arbitrary and capricious.
Claim 17: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when he was not allowed to obtain an updated mental health
evaluation during his motion to transport and Rule 35
Claim 18: Petitioner's due process rights were violated
when the district court refused to hear argument at