1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40334

PHILLIP RALPH LEWIS CARLE , Petitioner-Appellant ,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO , Respondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 525

Filed: June 5, 2013
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN U NPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Shoshone County. Hon. Fred M. Gibler , District Judge.
Judgment dismissing action for post

- conviction relief, affirmed

. Phillip Ralph Lewis Carle, Orofino, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ LANSING, Judge Phillip Ralph Lewis Carle was found guilty of two counts of rape, Idaho Code § 18

- 6101
, and one count of sexual penetrat ion by use of a foreign object, I.C. § 18

- 6608. The district court
sentenced Carle to concurrent unified sentences of life imprisonment, with m inimum periods of confinement of twenty

- five years, on each count. Carle appealed his conviction
, and the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed. Carle then filed a pro se petition for post

- conviction relief which the district court dismissed. On appeal, his post

- conviction action was remanded and an attorney was appointed to represent him. Trial was held on the issues raised in that post

- conviction petition and judgment ultimately was entered dismissing Carle’s petition. Carle appealed that
dismissal and th en filed a successive petition for post

- conviction relief
, which was also dismissed. Carle now appeals, pro se , from the district court’s dismissal of his successive petition for post

- conviction relief.2 We have found in Carle’s appellate brief no claim of error that we can address. Idaho Appellate Rule 35 1 requires that an appellant identify the specific issues to be considered on appeal and present arguments with citations to the record and transcript on which the arguments rely. I.A.R . 35(a)(4), (6). The failure of an appellant to include an issue in the statement of issues required by I.A.R. 35(a)(4) will eliminate consideration of the issue on appeal. State v.
Crowe , 131 Idaho 109, 111, 952 P.2d 1245, 1247 (1998). This rule may be relaxed, howeve r, where the issue is argued in the briefing

. Id

. In this case, Carle has not satisfied these requirements in his appellant’s brief. Carle merely restates the brief that he filed in his last post

- conviction relief petition and re

- labeled it

“ Opening Br ief of Appellant.” Carle does not articulate any issues presented on appeal as required by I.A.R. 35(a)(4), and also fails to present any argument in his brief identifying error in
the district court’s rationale for dismissal. His brief does not even men tion the district court’s dismissal of his petition, much less provide reasons for why the district court erred in its stated grounds for dismissal . Because Carle’s brief does not articulate any issues or include any argument that the district court ’s dis missal order was in error, we find no basis to reverse the
district court’s decision. Therefore, the district court’s judgment dismissing Carle’s petition for post

- conviction
relief is affirmed. Chief Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge MELANSON CONCUR.

1 Idaho Appellate Rule 35(a) provides in relevant part:
(a) Appellant’ s Brief. The brief of the appellant shall contain the following divisions under appropriate headings:

. . . . (4) Issues Presented on Appeal. A list of the issues presented on appeal, expressed in the terms and circumstances of the case but without unnecessary detail. The statement of the issues should be short and concise, and should not be re petitious. The issues shall fairly state the issues presented for review. The statement of issues presented will be deemed to include every subsidiary issue fairly comprised therein.

. . . . (6) Argument. The argument shall contain the contentions of t he appellant with respect to the issues presented on appeal, the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes and parts of the transcript and record relied upon.