1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42025

TRUMAN EDWARD UHLRY ,
Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO , Respondent

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 626

Filed: September 11, 2015
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker , District Judge.
Judgment summarily dismissing petition for post

- conviction relief, affirmed

. Truman Edward Uhlry, Boise, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ MELANSON, Chief Judge
Tr u man Edward Uhlry appeals from the district court ’ s judgment summar il y dismiss ing
his successive petition for post

- conviction relief. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Uhlry pled guilty to driving under the influence. On November 15, 2013, Uhlry filed a successive petition for post

- conviction relief. The distric t court provided Uhlry notice of its intent to dismiss and then dismissed Uhlry’s petition for post

- conviction relief, holding that his petition was untimely and that neither of his claims provided a ground for relief. Uhlry appeals. The statute of limitation for post

- conviction actions provides that a petition for post

conviction relief may be filed at any time within one year from the expiration of the time for appeal or from the determination of appeal or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later. I.C. § 19

- 4902(a). The appeal referenced in that section means the appeal in the underlying criminal case. Freeman v. State , 122 Idaho 627, 628, 836 P.2d 1088,2

1089 (1992) . The failure to file a time ly petition is a basis for dismissal of the petition

. Sayas v.
State , 139 Idaho 957, 959, 88 P.3d 776, 778 (Ct. App. 2003) . However, i f an initial post

con viction action was timely filed , an inmate may file a subsequent petition outside of the one

year l imitation period if the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended petition

. I.C. § 19

- 4908 ; Charboneau v. State , 144 Idaho 900, 904, 174 P.3d 870, 874 (2007). Uhlry ’ s successive petition for post

- conviction relief was untimely. Accordingly, we must decide
whether any issue raised by Uhlry asserted a ground for relief and whether Uhlry provided
sufficient reason s for why the issues raised were not asserted or were inadequately asserted in his prior post

- conviction proceeding. Because the first question is dispositi ve, it is unnecessary for
this C ourt to address the second issue

. Uh l r y argues that the district court erred in dismissing his petition for post

- conviction
relief. Uhlry alleges that his post

- conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to assert a claim that Uhlry received ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Uhlry also asserts a Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83 (1963) violation. 1 There is no constitutionally protected right to the effective assistance of counsel in post

conviction relief proceedings and such an allegation, in and of itself, is not among the permiss ible grounds for post

- conviction relief. See Follinus v. State , 127 Idaho 897, 902, 908 P.2d 590, 595 (Ct. App. 1995); Wolfe v. State , 113 Idaho 337, 339, 743 P.2d 990, 992 (Ct. App. 1987). Indeed, i neffective assistance of prior post

- conviction counsel is no longer a sufficient reason for filing a successive petition for post

- conviction relief. Murphy v. State , 156 Idaho 389, 395, 327 P.3d 365, 371 (2014)

. Uhlry ’ s assertion that his post

- conviction counsel was ineffective for failing to bring an
ineffec tive assistance of counsel claim regarding his trial counsel is barred by Murphy . Thus,
under Murphy
, Uhlry cannot demonstrate a sufficient reason for failing to raise his claims in his

1 Uhlry asserts many additional claims on appeal, which were not raised below. The scope of post

- conviction relief is limited. Rodgers v. State , 129 Idaho 720, 725, 932 P.2d 348, 353 (1997). A petition for post

- conviction relief is not a substitute for an appeal. I.C. § 19

- 4901(b). A claim or issue which was or could have been raised on appeal may not be considered in post

conviction proceedings. Id. Accordingly, we will not address Uhlry’s other claims.3

initial petition for post

- conviction relief. As a result, Uhlry cannot justify filing a successive petition for post

- conviction relief. Second, Uhlry alleges he stated a claim pursuant to Brady because the state withheld information regarding employees of a forensics laboratory violating laboratory policies and

proce dures

-- information Uhlry claims could have been used to impeach the employees ’
testimonies at trial. A criminal defendant claiming a right to relief under Brady must show three components: that the evidence at issue is favorable to the accused because it is either exculpatory or impeaching; that the evidence was suppressed by the s tate, either willfully or inadvertently; and that the evidence was material because there is a reasonable probability that its
disclosure to the defense would have led to a diff erent result. Strickler v. Greene , 527 U.S. 263,
281

- 82 (1999); State v. Shackleford , 150 Idaho 355, 380, 247 P.3d 582, 607 (2010); State v. Branigh , 155 Idaho 404, 422, 313 P.3d 732, 750 (Ct. App. 2013). Uhlry has not met his burden of proof under Brady

. First, as noted by the district court, Uhlry has not shown that his blood was improperly tested. Further, a ssuming without deciding, Uhlry has shown that information about laboratory employees ’ violations of policies and procedures was favorable to him and that
i t was willfully or inadvertently withheld, he has not provided any argument or authority to show
that disclosure of the information would have led to a different result. Uhlry asserts that the information could have been used to impeach witness es at trial, but provides nothing to persuade
this C ourt that the ability to impeach the testimony of witnesses at trial would have led to a
different result

-- specifically that it would have affected his decision to plead guilty. Uhlry ’ s ineffect ive ass istance of counsel claim is barred by Murphy

. In addition, Uhlry
did not me e t his burden of stating a claim under Brady

. Thus, Uhlry did not provide a sufficient ground for relief to justify filing a successive post

- conviction petition. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court ’ s judgment summarily dismissing Uhlry ’ s successive petition for post

conviction relief. No costs or attorney fees are awarded on appeal. Judge GUTIERREZ and Judge GRATTON, CONCUR

.