United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
Lynn Winmill, U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
filed by former Idaho prisoner Michael Dale Roberts
(“Petitioner”), challenging Petitioner's Ada
County conviction for possession of a controlled substance.
(Dkt. 1.) Respondent has filed a Motion for Partial Summary
Dismissal, arguing that Claims 1(a), 4, and 5 are subject to
dismissal. (Dkt. 11.) The Motion is now ripe for
Court takes judicial notice of the records from
Petitioner's state court proceedings, which have been
lodged by Respondent. (Dkt. 10.) See Fed. R. Evid.
201(b); Dawson v. Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 n.1
(9th Cir. 2006).
carefully reviewed the record, including the state court
record, the Court finds 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 Claims 1(a), 4, and 5 with prejudice.
facts underlying Petitioner's conviction are set forth
clearly and accurately in State v. Roberts, Docket
No. 40557, Op. 512 (Idaho Ct. App. May 22, 2014)
(unpublished), which is contained in the record at
State's Lodging B-8. The facts will not be repeated here
except as necessary to explain the Court's decision.
Fourth Judicial District Court in Ada County, Idaho,
Petitioner pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a
controlled substance. In return for the guilty plea, the state
dismissed a charge of possession of drug paraphernalia.
(State's Lodging B-8 at 2.) Petitioner was placed in the
drug court program but was eventually discharged from that
program for noncompliance. (Id.)
after he was discharged from drug court, Petitioner moved to
withdraw his guilty plea. At the hearing on the motion, the
prosecutor provided the trial court with the underlying
police report “to identify the factual circumstances of
[Petitioner's] arrest.” (Id. at 3.)
Petitioner also had a copy of this document, but neither
party moved to admit the police report into
evidence. (Id. at 4-5 and n.1.) The trial
court denied the motion to withdraw the plea. Petitioner
received a unified sentence of seven years in prison with two
years fixed, but the trial court retained jurisdiction and
placed Petitioner on a rider. (State's Lodging A-1 at
95-96, A-3 at 28-29.)
appealed from the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty
plea and requested that the record be augmented with the
police report. The Idaho Supreme Court granted the motion and
ordered that the district court clerk provide the appellate
court with either the police report or an “affidavit
... as to why [the report] cannot be provided.”
(State's Lodging B-2.) The district court clerk submitted
an affidavit stating that the court record did not contain
the entire police report, but that four of the eight pages of
the report were attached to Petitioner's pre-sentence
investigation report. (State's Lodging B-3.)
then filed his opening brief on appeal, raising two claims:
(1) that the trial court's failure to preserve the police
report, on which it relied to deny Petitioner's motion to
withdraw his plea, violated Petitioner's right to due
process, and (2) that the trial court's denial of the
motion constituted an abuse its discretion under Idaho law.
(State's Lodging B-5.) The Idaho Court of Appeals
affirmed. (State's Lodging B-8.)
sought review in the Idaho Supreme Court, renewing these two
claims. Petitioner also expanded on his due process claim
involving the police report, contending that the Idaho Court
of Appeals “disregarded” the Idaho Supreme
Court's order regarding that report. (State's Lodging
B-9; B-10 at 7.) The state supreme court denied review.
(State's Lodging B-11.)
the period of retained jurisdiction, the trial court
suspended Petitioner's sentence and placed him on
probation. (State's Lodging C-1 at 15-17, 19-21, 24-25.)
However, the trial court later revoked probation and ordered
execution of the underlying sentence. (State's Lodging C-1 at
48-50; C-3 at 12; D-4 at 1.) Petitioner appealed, arguing
that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) failing to
retain jurisdiction upon revocation, and (2) denying
Petitioner's motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho
Criminal Rule 35. (State's Lodging D-1.) The Idaho Court
of Appeals affirmed. (State's Lodging D-4.) Petitioner
did not file a petition for review with the Idaho Supreme
Court. (See State's Lodging D-5.)
then filed a petition for state post-conviction relief. He
asserted three broad claims: (1) Petitioner received
ineffective assistance of counsel, based on counsel's
alleged (a) failure to obtain an audio recording, or
laboratory testing on the drug paraphernalia, (b) failure to
submit records to the trial court in connection with the
motion to withdraw the guilty plea, (c) failure to
communicate adequately, and (d) misstatements about the
conditions of the plea agreement; (2) Petitioner's right
to due process was violated; and (3) the prosecution failed
to disclose favorable evidence to the defense. (State's
Lodging E-1 at 5-6.) After holding an evidentiary hearing,
the state district court dismissed the petition.
(Id. at 46-61; E-3.)
appeal from the dismissal of his post-conviction petition,
Petitioner was initially appointed counsel. His attorney
later withdrew from the representation, however, with court
approval. (State's Lodging F-3; F-4.) Petitioner then
filed a pro se brief, which raised the following issues: (1)
whether Petitioner's counsel rendered ineffective
assistance “when representing [Petitioner] during the
guilty plea hearing at the pretrial juncture while assisting
him with the guilty plea advisory form as well as counsel
representing [Petitioner] during the motion to withdraw
guilty plea”; (2) whether Petitioner's counsel, the
prosecutor, and the court “suborn[ed] perjury by
proceeding forward with a guilty plea colloquy while
previously stipulating a condition as part of the conditional
guilty plea ... due to the results of the lab tests”;
and (3) whether the prosecution withheld favorable evidence
from the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963). (State's Lodging F-5 at 9.)
Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
post-conviction petition. (State's Lodging F-8.) The
court rejected Petitioner's ineffective assistance of
counsel and Brady claims on the merits.
(Id. at 3-6.) However, the state court declined to
address Petitioner's remaining allegations, including his
subornation-of-perjury claim, because Petitioner had not
raised the issue in the state district court. (Id.
at 3 n.1.) The Idaho Supreme Court denied review.
(State's Lodging F-10.)
instant federal habeas corpus petition, Petitioner asserts
the following claims, as previously construed by the
Claim 1: Violation of due process based on the trial
court's [(a)] denial of Petitioner's motion to
withdraw his guilty plea and [(b)] violation of an order from
the Idaho Supreme Court.
Claim 2: Ineffective assistance of trial counsel based on
counsel's representation of Petitioner before the entry
of the conditional guilty plea.
Claim 3: Violation of due process and prosecutorial
misconduct based on the prosecutor's failure to disclose
favorable evidence to the defense.
Claim 4: Violation of due process based on Petitioner's
trial counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court suborning
perjury or engaging in other misconduct in the context of
Petitioner's plea hearing.
Claim 5: Violation of the Fourth Amendment based on an
allegedly unreasonable search and seizure.
(Initial Review Order, Dkt. 6 at 2 (internal quotation marks
and citations omitted.)
Court previously reviewed the Petition and allowed Petitioner
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 ...