EZEQUIEL ADAN CAMPOS, aka EZEQUIEL Z. CAMPOS, Petitioner-Appellant,
STATE OF IDAHO, Respondent.
from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood,
of the district court summarily dismissing petition for
post-conviction relief, affirmed.
D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth
Ann Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for
Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
GRATTON, CHIEF JUDGE
Adan Campos appeals from the district court's judgment
dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. Campos
argues that the district court erred in summarily dismissing
his post-conviction claims because he presented genuine
issues of material fact as to his ineffective assistance of
trial counsel claim. For the reasons set forth below, we
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
2016, pursuant to a plea agreement, Campos pled guilty to
unlawful possession of a weapon, Idaho Code § 18-3316.
The district court imposed a unified term of five years with
four years determinate to run consecutive with a sentence in
an unrelated case (Canyon County case). Campos did not file a
2017, Campos filed a pro se petition for post-conviction
relief raising numerous claims. Thereafter, Campos was
appointed post-conviction counsel. Appointed counsel chose
not to amend Campos' petition. As relevant to his claim
on appeal, Campos alleged that his trial counsel was
ineffective for leading him to believe that he would receive
a concurrent sentence, and advising him to "simply agree
in the 'positive' with what ever (sic) was ask[ed] at
pleading" and counsel would address Campos'
sentencing questions later pursuant to an Idaho Criminal Rule
35 motion. The State filed a motion for summary dismissal
arguing that the claim was disproved by the record. After a
hearing on the motion, the district court summarily dismissed
Campos' petition. Campos timely appeals.
petition for post-conviction relief initiates a proceeding
that is civil in nature. I.C. § 19-4907; Rhoades v.
State, 148 Idaho 247, 249, 220 P.3d 1066, 1068 (2009);
State v. Bearshield, 104 Idaho 676, 678, 662 P.2d
548, 550 (1983); Murray v. State, 121 Idaho 918,
921, 828 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Ct. App. 1992). Like a plaintiff in
a civil action, the petitioner must prove by a preponderance
of evidence the allegations upon which the request for
post-conviction relief is based. Goodwin v. State,
138 Idaho 269, 271, 61 P.3d 626, 628 (Ct. App. 2002). A
petition for post-conviction relief differs from a complaint
in an ordinary civil action. Dunlap v. State, 141
Idaho 50, 56, 106 P.3d 376, 382 (2004). A petition must
contain much more than a short and plain statement of the
claim that would suffice for a complaint under Idaho Rule of
Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). Rather, a petition for
post-conviction relief must be verified with respect to facts
within the personal knowledge of the petitioner, and
affidavits, records, or other evidence supporting its
allegations must be attached or the petition must state why
such supporting evidence is not included with the petition.
I.C. § 19-4903. In other words, the petition must
present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting
its allegations, or the petition will be subject to
dismissal. Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64, 67, 266 P.3d
1169, 1172 (Ct. App. 2011).
Code Section 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of a
petition for post-conviction relief, either pursuant to a
motion by a party or upon the court's own initiative, if
it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to
interrogatories, and admissions and agreements of fact,
together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no
genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering
summary dismissal, the district court must construe disputed
facts in the petitioner's favor, but the court is not
required to accept either the petitioner's mere
conclusory allegations, unsupported by admissible evidence,
or the petitioner's conclusions of law. Roman v.
State, 125 Idaho 644, 647, 873 P.2d 898, 901 (Ct. App.
1994); Baruth v. Gardner, 110 Idaho 156, 159, 715
P.2d 369, 372 (Ct. App. 1986). Moreover, the district court,
as the trier of fact, is not constrained to draw inferences
in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary
disposition; rather, the district court ...