1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 48337

RAYMOND A. ROLES,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF IDAHO,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: August 30, 2021

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada 

County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge. 

Judgment summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.

Raymond A. Roles, Boise, pro se appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Chief Judge

Raymond A. Roles appeals from the district court’s judgment summarily dismissing his 

petition for post-conviction relief as untimely. Roles alleges the district court erred because his 

petition for post-conviction relief was timely and asserted valid claims of ineffective assistance of 

trial and appellate counsel. Because Roles’ petition for post-conviction relief was untimely and 

only asserted claims related to his underlying criminal conviction, the district court did not err. 

Accordingly, the judgment summarily dismissing Roles’ petition for post-conviction relief is 

affirmed. 

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In March 1990, a jury found Roles guilty of rape, first degree kidnapping, aggravated 

assault, and forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object. State v. Roles, 122 Idaho 138, 139, 

832 P.2d 311, 312 (Ct. App. 1992). The district court sentenced Roles to a unified term of life, 
2

with fifteen years determinate, for each of the crimes of rape, kidnapping, and forcible sexual 

penetration with a foreign object, and a determinate, five-year sentence for aggravated assault, 

with the sentences to run concurrently. Id. at 140, 832 P.2d at 313. Roles appealed. This Court 

affirmed the judgment of conviction and issued a remittitur on July 8, 1992.

Sometime in 2019,1 Roles filed a motion for credit for time served pursuant to Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 in his underlying criminal case, alleging error in the previous calculation of the 

time he spent in custody prior to his judgment of conviction. The district court granted Roles’ 

motion and entered an order granting credit for time served based on the amended calculations.

On May 20, 2020, Roles filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective 

assistance of trial counsel, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, fundamental error, and 

cumulative error in his underlying criminal proceeding. The State moved for summary judgment, 

arguing that Roles’ petition for post-conviction did not comply with the pleading requirements of 

Idaho Code §§ 19-4902, -4903. After a hearing, the district court found that Roles’ motion met 

the applicable pleading requirements and denied the State’s motion for summary judgment. 

The district court subsequently filed a notice of its intent to dismiss Roles’ petition for postconviction relief as untimely. Specifically, the district court notified Roles’ that his petition was 

untimely filed from the 1992 remittitur because the order granting Roles’ Rule 35 motion did not 

constitute an amended judgment of conviction that would reinstate the statute of limitation for 

filing a petition for post-conviction relief for claims arising from the original judgment of 

conviction. After receiving a response from Roles, the district court entered an order dismissing 

his petition for post-conviction relief for the reasons provided in its notice. Subsequently, the 

district court entered a judgment dismissing Roles’ petition of post-conviction relief. Roles timely 

appeals. 

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Our review of the district court’s construction and application of the limitation statute is a 

matter of free review. Kriebel v. State, 148 Idaho 188, 190, 219 P.3d 1204, 1206 (Ct. App. 2009). 

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, from the 

 1 Because Roles’ Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not in the record, this Court cannot 

confirm an exact filing date and adopts the district court’s statements regarding the filing date. 
3

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. Gonzalez v. State, 139 Idaho 384, 385, 79 P.3d 743, 744 (Ct. App. 2003). The 

failure to file a timely petition is a basis for dismissal of the petition. Kriebel, 148 Idaho at 190, 

219 P.3d at 1206. 

III.

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Roles argues his petition for post-conviction relief was timely because the 

district court’s order granting his Rule 35 motion served as an amended judgment, thereby 

reinstating the statute of limitation from which he could timely file a post-conviction action to 

challenge his original judgment of conviction. Because he argues he can timely challenge his 

original judgment of conviction and he established valid claims, Roles asserts that the district court 

erred in dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. In response, the State argues that the 

district court did not err by dismissing Roles’ untimely petition for post-conviction relief. 

When this Court issued the remittitur in Roles’ direct appeal in 1992, I.C. § 19-4902 

provided that an application for post-conviction relief may be filed within five years from “the 

expiration of the time for appeal or from determination of an appeal or from the determination of 

a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later.” 1988 I.C. § 19-4902. The remittitur from 

Roles’ appeal was issued on July 8, 1992. Therefore, under the law existing at the time, Roles had 

until July 8, 1997, to initiate an action for post-conviction relief. However, in 1993, the Idaho 

Legislature amended I.C. § 19-4902 to reduce the limitation period to one year. 1993 Sess. Laws, 

ch. 265, p.898. This amendment took effect on July 1, 1993, I.C. § 67-510, and shortened the 

statute of limitation for Roles’ claim to one year from the effective date of the amendment. 

Chapman v. State, 128 Idaho 733, 734, 918 P.2d 602, 603 (Ct. App. 1996). When a statute of 

limitation is reduced, a party whose right accrued before the effective date of the amendment “is 

given the full time allowed for action according to the terms of the amended statute from and after 

the effective date of the amended statute.” Id. (internal citations removed). Hence, the statute of 

limitation for Roles’ post-conviction petition expired on July 1, 1994, one year after the effective 

date of the 1993 amendment and more than fifteen years before Roles filed his petition for postconviction relief. 
4

However, Roles argues that the district court’s order granting his 2019 Rule 35 motion for 

credit for time served constituted an amended judgment, reinstating the statute of limitation and 

providing him another year from which to file a timely petition for post-conviction relief for claims 

arising from his original judgment of conviction. This argument is unavailing. The district court 

entered an order granting credit for time served, not an amended judgment of conviction in Roles’

criminal case. Accordingly, the order did not have any effect on the judgment of conviction and

did not renew the statute of limitation.

Because Roles’ petition for post-conviction relief was filed more than fifteen years after 

the statute of limitation expired, the claims are untimely and the district court did not err in 

summarily dismissing the petition.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Roles’ claims for post-conviction relief were untimely. Accordingly, the district court did 

not err in dismissing the petition as untimely and the judgment summarily dismissing Roles’ 

petition for post-conviction relief is affirmed. 

Judge LORELLO and Judge BRAILSFORD CONCUR.