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2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 525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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

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 penetration by use of a foreign object, I.C. § 18-6608. The district court 

sentenced Carle to concurrent unified sentences of life imprisonment, with minimum 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 then 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 351 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, however, 

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 Brief 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 mention 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 dismissal 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 repetitious. 

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 the 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.