Opinion ID: 1190406
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: under pre-1986 law, matthews has waived all of his claims except his constitutional claims and the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal.

Text: Although the district court's reliance on the 1986 amendment to I.C. § 19-4901 was error, it was harmless. The same result was readily obtainable by applying the law as it existed in 1985 as evidenced by this Court's opinion in Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469, 474-75, 491 P.2d 733, 738-39 (1971): Habeas corpus is available, however, to cure fundamental errors occurring at the trial which affect either the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of the judgment, even though these errors could have been raised on appeal. Wilson v. State, [90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966)]. Likewise, under I.C. § 19-4901(a)(1), post-conviction relief is available to cure unwaived constitutional errors or other fundamental errors occurring at the trial. In applying the rule that a post-conviction remedy is not a substitute for an appeal, other courts  in jurisdictions with provisions substantially identical to I.C. § 19-4901  have distinguished between `mere trial errors' (which can be corrected only by direct appeal) and `fundamental errors' (which may be raised even though they could have been raised on appeal). The Smith opinion went on to state that the failure to raise known and existing grounds of unconstitutional action on direct appeal bars a subsequent challenge of the conviction predicated on those grounds which, though known, had not been utilized. Applying this standard to Matthews' issues, we hold that the fifth and sixth issues (that the court erred in not instructing the jury regarding the credibility of accomplice witnesses or of convicted felons witnesses), as well as the seventh (that the prejudicial effect of the photographs of the victim shown to the jury outweighed their probative value) and eighth (that the prosecutor engaged in improper cross-examination) were not raised on direct appeal and further fall within the category of mere trial errors. Accordingly, Matthews is procedurally barred from raising those issues now.