from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Madison County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller,
granting, in part, petition for post-conviction relief,
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen,
Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant.
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P.
Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Kenneth K. Jorgensen argued.
P. Anderson argued.
GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE.
State appeals from the district court's judgment
granting, in part, William Jack Bias's petition for
post-conviction relief. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code
§§ 18-8004; 18-8005(5). The district court imposed
a ten-year sentence with five years determinate. After
sentencing, Bias filed a petition for post-conviction relief
challenging his conviction and sentence. Bias asserted
several ineffective assistance of counsel claims, one of
which alleged that Bias's trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to file a motion to suppress "challeng[ing]
proto call [sic] of stop, and jurisdiction of law
enforcement." The district court appointed
post-conviction counsel after finding that Bias's
petition gave rise to the possibility of a valid claim on at
least a few of his ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Bias's post-conviction counsel did not file an amended
petition or supplement the original petition. The State filed
an answer denying all of the claims in Bias's petition.
district court subsequently conducted evidentiary hearings
primarily focused on issues related to Bias's ineffective
assistance of counsel claims. At the second evidentiary
hearing, the parties agreed to limit the scope of the hearing
to the issue of whether there were meritorious grounds for a
motion to suppress based on Bias's belief that the
officer was acting outside of his jurisdictional boundaries
when he stopped and arrested Bias. The State called the
officer who stopped Bias to testify as to where the traffic
stop had occurred and then introduced dashcam video to
confirm the location of the stop. This was the first time
that either Bias, post-conviction counsel, or trial counsel
had seen the video. Based on the video, Bias's
post-conviction counsel conceded there was no jurisdictional
issue, but asserted Bias's trial counsel was ineffective
for failing to challenge the reasonable suspicion for the
stop. The State objected to the court's consideration of
the reasonable suspicion claim arguing the court was allowing
Bias to delve into new areas outside of the limited scope of
the hearing. Over the State's objection, the court held a
third evidentiary hearing to address the reasonable suspicion
claim. Following the hearing, the district court granted
Bias's petition for post-conviction relief insofar as he
had asserted trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
file a motion to suppress challenging the reasonable
suspicion for the stop. The State timely appeals.
order to prevail in a post-conviction proceeding, the
petitioner must prove the allegations by a preponderance of
the evidence. I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State,
118 Idaho 865, 869, 801 P.2d 1216, 1220 (1990); Baxter v.
State, 149 Idaho 859, 861, 243 P.3d 675, 677 (Ct. App.
2010). When reviewing a decision granting post-conviction
relief after an evidentiary hearing, an appellate court will
not disturb the lower court's factual findings unless
they are clearly erroneous. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure
52(a); Cook v. State, 157 Idaho 775, 777, 339 P.3d
1179, 1181 (Ct. App. 2014). The credibility of the witnesses,
the weight to be given to their testimony, and the inferences
to be drawn from the evidence are all matters solely within
the province of the district court. Dunlap v. State,
141 Idaho 50, 56, 106 P.3d 376, 382 (2004); Larkin v.
State, 115 Idaho 72, 73, 764 P.2d 439, 440 (Ct. App.
1988). We exercise free review of the district court's
application of the relevant law to the facts.
Baxter, 149 Idaho at 862, 243 P.3d at 678.
Notice and ...