Opinion ID: 874850
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The alleged secret plea agreement

Text: Pizzuto relies upon four pieces of evidence to show the existence of the alleged secret plea agreement: an affidavit from Rice; an affidavit from Rice's ex-wife, Joy Tara; and notes and billing records from Rice's counsel. In addition, Pizzuto argues that his petition was timely filed. Pizzuto argues that it was only shortly before filing of the petition that Rice finally admitted that he testified against [Pizzuto] in exchange for promises not revealed to [Pizzuto], specifically, an agreed upon sentence of twenty years in which he was assured by the state that he would serve significantly fewer years. Nonetheless, the State argues that Pizzuto has failed to demonstrate why his claims could not have been presented in his first petition for post-conviction relief. In Rice's affidavit, signed September 28, 2005, where he divulges facts regarding his alleged secret plea deal, Rice describes why he did not come forth at an earlier date. In his affidavit, Rice wrote: I was contacted once in the past by an investigator for the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Defenders of the Eastern District of Washington and Idaho while I was serving my prison sentence on the Second Degree murder conviction out of Idaho. I did not tell the investigator about my deal because I did not want to jeopardize my parole. After I was released from prison, I did not seek to tell anyone about the deal because I might need the Idaho authorities to vouch for me one day. In fact, I was charged in a criminal case in California and my attorney did ask the prosecutor, Henry Boomer, to help me with my case. Now, I am in prison for life because I was a three strike defendant, and I have nothing to lose by coming forward with the truth. I also don't think Gerald Pizzuto should die because he was put up to the crime by Bill Odom. The State argues Rice wrote on his affidavit next to the above paragraph, Excluding, and as a result, the paragraph has been recanted by Rice. In a separate affidavit, Rice explained why he wrote Excluding next to the paragraph. The State argues, however, that Rice's explanation is too vague and that he never expressly stated he had previously been asked about his plea deal and refused to answer the question or deliberately lied. In his second affidavit, signed May 10, 2006, Rice stated: I wrote the word Excluding because I thought the sentence that reads, After I was released from prison, I did not seek to tell anyone about the deal because I might need the Idaho authorities to vouch for me one day made it sound like I was planning to commit more crimes after I was released when I was not. I didn't remember the sentence sounding like that when I reviewed it with Mrs. Bentley. Thinking about it now, another reason may have been that I was not sure that the second sentence in that paragraph was correct. The sentence is: I did not tell the investigator about my deal because I did not want to jeopardize my parole. I am not sure if I was concerned about my parole when I spoke with the previous investigator from the Federal Defender's office as it may have been after my parole issues were settled. I can't remember. Other than what I have explained, the affidavits and declarations I have signed for Mrs. Bentley are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The State argues, moreover, it is clear that an investigation regarding Rice's alleged plea agreement was not commenced until years after Pizzuto's first post-conviction petition was filed. The State argues, therefore, [E]ven if Rice had been more forthcoming, Pizzuto would not have raised the claim in his first petition because he failed to even question Rice until December 2, 1997. Pizzuto also relied upon an affidavit from Rice's wife, Joy Tara, to support his claim that Rice and the prosecutor entered into a secret plea agreement. Tara's affidavit, signed October 14, 2005, states that Rice knew he was going to receive a sentence of twenty years in exchange for his testimony against Pizzuto. Tara's affidavit also explains why she did not come forward sooner: After Jim was sentenced, I moved back to Santa Cruz and tried to disappear. I was petrified of Jim and afraid he would blame me for making him call the police and confess. I have been hiding from him. I am willing to cooperate with his investigation because I have learned that he is back in prison. The State argues that though Tara says she was hiding from Rice, she attended his sentencing hearing, and he was in jail for at least fourteen years, negating the need to hide. Pizzuto also relies upon notes and billing records to show that a meeting took place between Rice's attorney, the prosecutor, and Judge Reinhardt. Yet, the State argues that there is nothing to suggest the billing record and notes were not available when Pizzuto filed his first petition for post-conviction relief. This Court finds Pizzuto has failed to make a prima facie showing that his claims were not known or could not reasonably have been known when Pizzuto filed his first petition for post-conviction relief. I.C. § 19-2719(5); McKinney, 133 Idaho at 701, 992 P.2d at 150. First, the paragraph in the affidavit dated September 28, 2005, in which Rice explains why he did not divulge the secret plea agreement at an earlier date is inadmissible, as he disavowed it by writing the word Excluding next to the paragraph. Though Rice sought to clarify why he made such a notation, the State properly argued that Rice never stated he had previously been asked about the plea agreement and either lied or declined to answer. Second, Tara stated she tried to disappear for a number of years out of fear for Rice. However, Tara also wrote: Jim's lawyers also arranged for me to have a phone call with Jim, and a visit with Jim while I was in Idaho. They said I should go see Jim because it would help Jim to have a visit. When I talked to Jim, he told me don't say anything, you don't know anything, I never told you anything. Nonetheless, I would have told anyone what Jim told me about the crimes but no one ever asked. Jim's attorneys didn't ask me. No other attorneys or police officers or investigators questioned me about that until now. Thus, though Tara states she was in hiding, she admitted to being ready and willing to reveal what Rice had told her. Lastly, Pizzuto has not shown that he could not have obtained possession of the notes and billing records from Rice's attorneys at an earlier date.