Court Opinion

ID: 9511436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:04:34.93081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:01.639238
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
dissenting.
¶17 The Court cites no authority for its conclusion in ¶ 15 that, once a district court authorizes the filing of a pro se motion by a defendant who is represented by counsel, the district court is then “obligated to address [all] the constitutional arguments raised.” Of course, there is no authority for such a proposition. The District Court’s granting of an opportunity for Samples to file his petition was completely optional, an act of grace. It was bestowed based on the District Court’s understanding that Samples wanted to raise an ex post facto argument. The fact that Samples stated that he had other possible issues does not turn the matter into one of right and obligation. The District Court considered and ruled upon Samples’ ex post facto argument, and, in so doing, fulfilled its understanding of the procedural deviation it had courteously granted to Samples. As a matter of grace, the District Court was obligated to do nothing more.
¶18 I would affirm.