Court Opinion

ID: 9845221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:16:55.61403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:54.987796
License: Public Domain

BISTLINE, Justice,
dissenting.
An accused person has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel. U.S. Const. amend. VI; Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344, 83 S.Ct. 792, 796-97, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). “This right is fundamental and is not a luxury.” Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 932, 934, 801 P.2d 1283, 1285 (1990) citing United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984). The right to counsel necessarily includes the right to effective assistance of counsel. McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 837, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970).
The district court dismissed Ivey’s petition without an evidentiary hearing pursuant to I.C. § 19-4906(c). That statute reads:
The court may grant a motion by either party for summary disposition of an application when it appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions and agreements of fact, together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Like a summary judgment motion, all facts and inferences reasonably drawn from the facts must be construed in favor of the applicant. Matthews v. State, 122 Idaho 801, 839 P.2d 1215 (1992); Parrott v. State, 117 Idaho 272, 274, 787 P.2d 258, 260 (1990). Until allegations in a post-conviction petition are controverted they are deemed to be true. Clark v. State, 92 Idaho 827, 830, 452 P.2d 54, 57 (1969). The issue on appeal from a dismissal is whether the petition alleges facts which, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469, 472, 491 P.2d 733, 736 (1971).
Ivey made the following allegations in his petition:
(A.) My Public Defender failed to properly represent me at all stages of my criminal proceedings, as follows:
(1.) He allowed State Witnesses to provide perjured testimony, without proper cross-examination or use of rebuttal evidence and witnesses, which were available to him and known to him.
(2.) He allowed the prosecutor, who well knew of perjured testimony by State Witnesses, to knowingly submit it. The prosecutor failed to provide proper discovery disclosure to me and my counsel.
(3.) He failed to subpoena and call exculpatory defense witnesses which were known to him, including my wife.
(4.) He failed to follow up on information that would have identified the true murderer and his vehicle, and he failed to get a voice analysis of a telephone message left by the true murderer.
(5.) An essential defense witness who could have and should have been subpoena by interstate process, from Detroit, Michigan was not subpoenaed.
(6.) Available defense witnesses were not called to testify as to my alibi, my demeanor at the subject time, my lack of blood stains, my lack of motive, and my non-violent history. The victim’s diary *82was not produced, which would have shown an amicable relationship with the victim.
(7.) My public defender promised strong and vigorous cross-examination of State’s witnesses Michael Angel and Cameron Lane, but failed to do so.
R. 11-12.3 The prosecuting attorney then filed an affidavit from Van Bishop, the public defender, which disputed each of the allegations above. In response, Ivey filed an affidavit alleging more specific facts.4 To my mind, the allegations made by Ivey raise an issue of material fact as to whether Bishop provided effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, I believe the dismissal of the petition was improper under Matthews.
The majority dismisses the allegations made in Ivey’s affidavit because they allegedly fail to comply with “Rule 56(e) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires the affidavit to be made on personal knowledge setting forth facts that would be admissible at trial.” At 80, 844 P.2d at 709. This logic would be sound except for the fact that I.R.C.P. 56(e) does not apply in this case. Rule 56(e) applies to affidavits filed in support of or in opposition to summary judgment pursuant to I.R.C.P. 56(aHb). No such motion was filed in this case. The motion filed by the State was pursuant to I.C. § 19-4906(c). That statute does not contain the requirements for affidavits found in I.R.C.P. 56(e).5 It appears the legislature decided to not require petitioner’s affidavits in opposition to a I.C. § 19-4906 dismissal to meet the high standards of I.R.C.P. 56(e), and I object to the Court’s attempt to engraft such a rule onto the statutory procedure. In all likelihood, the legislature recognized it would be extremely difficult for petitioners, who may be incarcerated and without the assistance of counsel, to gather affidavits from potentially far flung witnesses, given their circumstances and lack of means.
Even assuming Rule 56(e) applies to a petition for post-conviction relief, it is just as likely as not that the allegations in Ivey’s petition are made from personal knowledge. The majority is wrong in declaring that Ivey's allegations “can only be the product of hearsay, as defendant has been incarcerated since indictment and cannot possibly have personal knowledge of Bishop’s conduct” (emphasis added). A close reading of Ivey’s petition belies the majority’s curiously summary contention. The facts contained in allegations 1, 6, and 7 occurred (or failed to occur) during the trial, when Ivey presumably was present. Ivey could easily have ascertained the facts underlying allegations 2, 3, 4, and 5 by speaking to Bishop. For instance, as to allegation 3, even from jail Ivey could have asked Bishop whether Bishop had subpoenaed Ivey’s wife, and Ivey certainly would have personal knowledge as to whether she was called to testify at trial. If Ivey ascertained this information from Bishop, it would not be hearsay, pursuant to I.R.E. 801(d)(2). The point here is not to determine under which hearsay exception such a statement would fall. The point is to show that whether the evidence is admissible is somewhat conjectural, thus rendering even more necessary an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, since, as stated above, a court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the petitioner, it would *83seem that a court must also view the preliminary facts concerning the admissibility of evidence in the same light. Hence, the trial court should have erred on the side of assuming, for purposes of petition dismissal proceedings, that Ivey’s allegations were made from personal knowledge.
As noted above and in the majority opinion, the facts in this case must be read in the light most favorable to the petitioner, Ivey. The majority contradicts this statement, however, when it places a “strong presumption in favor of competency” upon Ivey at this stage in the proceedings. We should not apply the Strickland presumption, which involves weighing the evidence, until an evidentiary hearing has occurred. What the majority is really doing by applying the presumption at this stage is weighing the evidence by balancing Ivey’s allegations of incompetency against Bishop’s defense of competency. The majority’s statement, that while a court must accept petitioner’s “unrebutted allegations” as true, it need not accept petitioner’s “conclusions,” might be seen as no more than a sleight of hand. A court must accept rebutted allegations in the light most favorable to petitioner as well. In short, whether Bishop’s alleged failings prejudiced Ivey is a question of fact. Ivey has alleged such failings and resulting prejudice. The court must accept that allegation in the light most favorable to Ivey.
It is also instructive to turn to I.R.C.P. 1(a), since the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure generally apply to post-conviction proceedings. State v. Goodrich, 104 Idaho 469, 660 P.2d 934 (1983). Rule 1(a) proclaims of the I.R.C.P. that, “These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”
I doubt strongly that the majority’s disposition of this case is just. Although a petition for post-conviction relief is civil in nature, see State v. Goodrich, above, it cannot be denied that there is a criminal law aspect as well; by its very nature, the petition addresses alleged error in a criminal proceeding and alleges an illegal infringement upon petitioner’s liberty. Since the precious value of liberty is involved, this Court should be very cautious in condoning the disposal of these actions in their initial stage on technicalities.

. Ivey goes on to allege that he was deprived the right to effective assistance of counsel at sentencing. This Court agrees with Ivey’s allegation in this regard, as we have recently vacated his death sentence for the same reasons he alleged in his petition. State v. Ivey, 123 Idaho 74, 844 P.2d 703 (1992).

. Ivey’s affidavit also alleged, in rebutting Bishop's affidavit, that Bishop did not allow him to testify on his own behalf, even though Ivey repeatedly requested that he be allowed to do so. If true, this could entitle Ivey to relief, since defendants have a right to testify at trial. See Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987).

.Perhaps the majority is confused because of our cases which hold that a motion to dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief is similar to a motion for summary judgment in that all facts must be construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. See e.g. Matthews, 122 Idaho at 807, 839 P.2d at 1221 (1992). We have never held, however, that the rules governing summary judgment apply to petitions for post-conviction relief.