Opinion ID: 2618212
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: limitation for post-conviction relief

Text: The appellant argues that the expedited post-conviction proceedings of I.C. § 19-2719 are unconstitutional. This statute was previously held to be constitutional in State v. Beam, 115 Idaho 208, 766 P.2d 678 (1988); State v. Paz, 118 Idaho 542, 798 P.2d 1 (1990); and, State v. Rhoades, 120 Idaho 795, 820 P.2d 665 (1991). The appellant's argument is without merit. The appellant attempts to attack this statute by suggesting the hypothetical scenario of a defendant who wishes to claim his trial counsel was ineffective. The appellant urges that because a defendant must bring the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a post-conviction proceeding, and that the trial counsel is responsible for the direct appeal from the conviction, the defendant must then represent himself in a pro se post-conviction petition which will be consolidated with the direct appeal, which would still be handled by the trial counsel who is alleged to be incompetent. This argument must be rejected. It is clear that a defendant who claims ineffective assistance of counsel must do so through a petition for post-conviction relief. [14] Idaho Code § 19-2719(3) requires a defendant to file any legal or factual challenge to the sentence or conviction that is known or reasonably should be known.