Court Opinion

ID: 9594022
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:26:21.90403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:25.753131
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice.
The appellant, Albert Ray Beam, was convicted of murder and rape and sentenced to death. The conviction and sentence were affirmed by this Court on direct appeal in State v. Beam, 109 Idaho 616, 710 P.2d 526 (1985), cert. denied 476 U.S. 1153, 106 S.Ct. 2260, 90 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986). The complete factual background leading to Beam’s murder conviction and sentence is set out in State v. Beam, supra. In sum, Beam and his co-defendant, Scroggins, were convicted of the first degree murder of a thirteen year old girl. Beam was also convicted of raping the girl. The co-defendant, Scroggins, was additionally convicted of attempted rape. Both men were sentenced to death. On direct appeal, Scroggins’ death sentence was vacated because it was found to be disproportionate, primarily because of his youth and lack of any significant prior criminal record. State v. Scroggins, 110 Idaho 380, 716 P.2d 1152 (1986). However, this Court affirmed Beam’s conviction and death sentence on direct appeal. Thereafter, Beam filed a petition for post conviction relief and an I.C.R. 35 motion to reduce his sentence. Additionally, Beam moved to disqualify the original trial judge from sitting in the post conviction and sentence reduction proceedings.
Beam’s motion to disqualify alleged that the trial judge was biased and prejudiced because he had disqualified himself from Scroggins’ resentencing, and in the order of disqualification made several statements which indicated that the judge disagreed with the Idaho Supreme Court’s reduction of Scroggins’ sentence and believed that both Beam and his co-defendant, Scroggins, should have received the death penalty for the heinous murder which they had committed. Beam contended that because of this self-disqualification in the Scroggins resentencing the trial judge could not objectively consider his post conviction relief petition or the I.C.R. 35 request for reduction of sentence. The trial court summarily denied the motion to disqualify. Beam then filed a second motion, this time specifically filing it pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 25(b). The second motion further alleged that the trial judge had a predisposed bias with regard to the issue of proportionality. A hearing was conducted on this motion. After the hearing, Beam’s motion was denied.
In his post conviction relief petition, Beam alleged that (1) the dual jury procedure used by the trial court deprived him of *210his constitutional rights; (2) the sentence imposed on him was excessive, unduly harsh and disproportionate to the sentence to be served by his co-defendant, Shawn Scroggins; (3) Idaho’s statutory capital sentencing procedure violated his right to jury sentencing rather than court sentencing; and (4) I.C. § 19-2719 (which shortened the time in which to bring his post conviction relief petition) deprived him of equal protection of the law. In denying the post conviction relief petition, the trial court refused to relitigate issues settled in the prior appeal and found that I.C. § 19-2719 had a rational and legitimate government basis and therefore did not deny equal protection of the law and was constitutional.
Beam’s I.C.R. 35 motion to correct or reduce the sentence stated as grounds that, because the Idaho Supreme Court had found that the trial court had erroneously sentenced Beam’s co-defendant Scroggins to death, Beam’s sentence was inherently disproportionate. In denying the Rule 35 motion, the trial court ruled that Beam had failed to carry the burden of (1) proving error, or (2) demonstrating the existence of facts or legal issues which were not considered at trial and which might affect the previously imposed sentence.
I

The Post Conviction Relief Proceeding

On appeal Beam argues that the trial court erred in denying each of his four grounds for post conviction relief. The trial court found three of Beam’s grounds barred by the doctrine of res judicata and ruled on the fourth ground, that I.C. § 19-2719 was constitutional. In resolving Beam’s challenge to the trial court’s disposition of his petition for post conviction relief, we must first examine the issues raised in the petition to determine which were properly before the trial court and which were precluded from consideration because of the res judicata effect of this Court’s decision in Beam’s direct appeal. State v. Beam, supra.
First we note that the Idaho legislature has adopted the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act which is found in Title 19, chapter 49, of the Idaho Code. All post conviction relief actions must be brought pursuant to the statutory grounds set forth in I.C. § 19-4901. The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act is designed to avoid repetitious and successive applications for appellate action and to eliminate confusion while still protecting the applicant’s constitutional rights. Dionne v. State, 93 Idaho 235, 459 P.2d 1017 (1969). An application for post conviction relief is a special proceeding, civil in nature, and is an entirely new proceeding, distinct from the criminal action which led to the conviction. Paradis v. State, 110 Idaho 534, 716 P.2d 1306 (1986); State v. Bearshield, 104 Idaho 676, 662 P.2d 548 (1983). The statute specifically provides that “[a]ny issue which could have been raised on direct appeal, but was not, is forfeited and may not be considered in post conviction proceedings, unless it appears to the court, on the basis of a substantial factual showing by affidavit, deposition or otherwise, that the asserted basis for relief raises a substantial doubt about the reliability of the finding of guilt and could not, in the exercise of due diligence, have been presented earlier.” I.C. § 19-4901(b). See also Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591, 635 P.2d 955 (1981); Kraft v. State, 100 Idaho 671, 674, 603 P.2d 1005, 1008 (1979); Hernandez v. State, 100 Idaho 581, 602 P.2d 539 (1979); Potter v. State, 114 Idaho 612, 759 P.2d 903 (Ct.App.1988).
Beam’s post conviction relief petition did not raise factual material “not previously presented and heard” under I.C. § 19-4901(a)(4). Rather, it raised only legal issues under I.C. § 19-4901(a)(l). A review of our decision in Beam’s direct appeal demonstrates that Beam had previously litigated three of the four legal' grounds that he asserts in seeking post conviction relief. In State v. Beam, supra, we upheld (1) the constitutionality of the dual jury procedure used in Beam’s trial, (2) the constitutionality of Idaho’s capital sentencing procedures, and (3) the proportionality and legality of Beam’s death sentence. Thus, the trial court correctly refused to relitigate those issues because *211they had previously been decided on direct appeal and thus were res judicata. Kraft v. State, supra; Potter v. State, supra. That leaves only Beam’s final ground for post conviction relief, i.e., the constitutionality of I.C. § 19-2719, which is purely a legal issue which we now address.
II

Constitutionality of I.C. 19-2719

Beam argues that I.C. § 19-2719 is an unconstitutional violation of his equal protection rights. The filing requirements under general provisions of the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act provide that “[a]n application may be filed at any time within five (5) years from the expiration of the time for appeal or from the determination of an appeal or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later.” I.C. § 19-4902. However, the legislature has adopted special appellate and post conviction procedure rules for capital cases in I.C. § 19-2719. The basis for Beam’s claim that I.C. § 19-2719 is unconstitutional is I.C. § 19-2719’s filing requirement which mandates that “[w]ithin forty-two (42) days of the filing of the judgment imposing the punishment of death, and before the death warrant is filed, the defendant must file any legal or factual challenge to the sentence or conviction that is known or reasonably should be known.” Beam argues that this requirement violates his constitutional right to equal protection because it creates a suspect class, and that the statute does not meet a compelling state interest because there is no justification for requiring those sentenced to death to bring their post conviction relief petitions within 42 days when all other criminal defendants are allowed up to five years to bring their petitions.
A constitutional equal protection analysis first requires the identification of (1) the classification which is being challenged and (2) the standard under which the classification will be judicially reviewed. Davis v. Moran, 112 Idaho 703, 735 P.2d 1014 (1987); Tarbox v. Tax Comm’n, 107 Idaho 957, 695 P.2d 342 (1984). Secondly, it must be determined whether the appropriate equal protection standard has been satisfied. State v. Breed, 111 Idaho 497, 725 P.2d 202 (Ct.App.1986).
There is no authority to support Beam’s argument that I.C. § 19-2719’s special procedure for capital cases involves a suspect class for equal protection analysis purposes. Suspect classes are those classes which have historically been encumbered with disabilities or have been subjected to unequal treatment or have been excluded from the majoritarian political process. See Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976); San Antonio Ind. School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16, reh’g denied 411 U.S. 959, 93 S.Ct. 1919, 36 L.Ed.2d 418 (1973). Suspect classes which have deserved special scrutiny have been based on race or national origin, religion, alienage, sex, non-residency and wealth. See 16A Am.Jur.2d Constitutional Law § 750 (1979). It is clear that I.C. § 19-2719, which provides special expedited procedures for post conviction review in capital cases, does not involve a suspect class within the meaning of the United States Constitution or the Idaho Constitution, and accordingly strict scrutiny is not required. Davis v. Moran, supra; Tarbox v. Tax Comm’n, supra; Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine, 97 Idaho 859, 555 P.2d 399 (1976).
Accordingly, where there is no suspect class, the legislature’s enactment of I.C. § 19-2719 need only have a rational basis, unless it can be said that I.C. § 19-2719’s special procedures for expediting post conviction proceedings in capital cases constitutes an “obviously” “invidiously discriminatory classification,” in which event the means-focus test of Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine, supra, is the appropriate standard. Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine, 97 Idaho at 867, 555 P.2d 399. Under the means-focus test, if the statute establishes an “obviously” “invidiously discriminatory classification,” the “Court will examine the means by which those classifications are utilized and implemented in light of the asserted legislative purpose” to determine *212if “the legislative means substantially furthers some specifically identifiable legislative end.” Id. The means-focus equal protection analysis requires a determination of whether different treatment is accorded to persons “on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute.” Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75, 92 S.Ct. 251, 254, 30 L.Ed.2d 225 (1971).
We find no “obviously” “invidiously discriminatory classification” in I.C. § 19-2719, as described in Jones. Not every legislative classification which treats different classes of people differently can be said to be “discriminatory,” much less “obviously” “invidiously discriminatory.” Otherwise, all legislative classifications would require a means-focus analysis, and the rational basis test, which is the primary basis upon which most equal protection evaluations are made, would be eclipsed. For a classification to be “obviously” “invidiously discriminatory,” it must distinguish between individuals or groups either odiously or on some other basis calculated to excite animosity or ill will.1 I.C. § 19-2719 and its special procedures were specifically enacted to “accomplish the purpose of eliminating unnecessary delay in carrying out a valid death sentence.” I.C. § 19-2719. Nothing therein could be described as obviously invidiously discriminatory. Accordingly, we find the means-focus classification to be inapplicable to I.C. § 19-2719.
However, even if the means-focus analysis were applicable to I.C. § 19-2719, the means-focus standard would only be violated if persons were placed “into different classes on the basis of criteria wholly unrelated to the objective of the statute.” Reed v. Reed, supra, 92 S.Ct. at 254. On appeal, “this Court will examine the means by which those classifications are utilized and implemented in light of the asserted legislative purpose.” Jones v. State Board of Medicine, supra, 97 Idaho at 867, 555 P.2d 399 (emphasis added). I.C. § 19-2719 specifically states that its special procedures are for the express purpose of “eliminating unnecessary delay in carrying out a valid death sentence.” Unlike a sentence of imprisonment, which can be carried out during the pendency of a post conviction proceeding, the sentence of death cannot be carried out without rendering any post' conviction relief proceeding moot. Accordingly, unless a judgment and sentence in a capital case is stayed pending post conviction proceedings, those post conviction proceedings would be rendered moot by carrying out the sentence of death. If a capital defendant had five years within which to file a post conviction proceeding, and if during that five-year period the judgment and sentence of death were stayed waiting for the filing of post conviction proceedings, an automatic delay of five years would occur in addition to the exceedingly long time now required to process the appeal from the judgment and sentence and the federal habeas corpus proceedings. Death penalty cases, which often take more than ten years to conclude, could be delayed an additional five years by a capital defendant skillfully manipulating a five-year filing period for post conviction proceedings. The 42-day requirement in I.C. § 19-2719 was enacted to eliminate those five years of additional delay and is clearly “[rjelated to the objective of the statute,” as expressed in the statement of purpose of the act.2 Reed v. Reed, supra, 92 S.Ct. at *213254. Accordingly, I.C. § 19-2719 would meet even the means-focus analysis, if that standard were applicable. However, as indicated above, the classification drawn by I.C. § 19-2719 is not “obviously” “invidiously discriminatory,” and thus the rational basis test, rather than the means-focus test, is applicable.
Under the rational basis test, which is the appropriate test here, the legislature’s action need only have a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U.S. 456, 101 S.Ct. 715, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981), reh’g denied, 450 U.S. 1027, 101 S.Ct. 1735, 68 L.Ed.2d 222 (1981); McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973); Leliefeld v. Johnson, 104 Idaho 357, 374, 659 P.2d 111, 128 (1983) (“Under the ‘rational basis’ test which is generally appropriate to use when reviewing statutes which impact social or economic areas, the question becomes whether the classification ‘advances legitimate legislative goals in a rational fashion.’ ” [quoting from Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 234, 101 S.Ct. 1074, 1082, 67 L.Ed.2d 186 (1981)]). The validity of I.C. § 19-2719 must be tested on that standard. In applying the rational basis test, we begin with the understanding that (1) the legislature may reasonably exercise its power to define crime and fix punishment by classifying criminals with reference to the heinous nature or gravity of the crime committed, see Malloroy v. State, 91 Idaho 914, 435 P.2d 254 (1967), and (2) legislative declarations of public purpose are afforded great deference in determining the validity of legislation under the equal protection clauses of the United States and Idaho Constitutions. See Idaho Water Resource Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 35 (1976).
In this case the legislature clearly pointed out a rational basis for I.C. § 19-2719 in the statement of purpose which accompanied the enactment of the statute. The underlying legislative purpose behind the statute stated the need to expeditiously conclude criminal proceedings and recognized the use of dilatory tactics by those sentenced to death to “thwart their sentences.” The statute’s purpose is to “avoid such abuses of legal process by requiring that all collateral claims for relief ... be consolidated in one proceeding....” We hold that the legislature’s determination that it was necessary to reduce the interminable delay in capital cases is a rational basis for the imposition of the 42-day time limit set for I.C. § 19-2719. The legislature has identified the problem and attempted to remedy it with a statutory scheme that is rationally related to the legitimate legislative purpose of expediting constitutionally imposed sentences. Accordingly, I.C. § 19-2719 does not violate the defendant’s constitutional right to equal protection, and the trial court correctly denied Beam’s post conviction petition.
Ill

The Motions for Disqualification

Beam argues on appeal that the trial judge should have disqualified himself from presiding over both the post conviction proceeding and the I.C.R. 35 motion hearing for reduction of sentence. During the course of the proceedings below, Beam made two motions for disqualification which alleged basically the same grounds. Both motions were made under I.C.R. 25, with the second motion specifically referring to subsection (b) of Rule 25. Initially it is necessary to point out there is no right to an automatic disqualification of the trial *214judge in either a post conviction proceeding or an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence.3 Thus, the only basis for disqualification of the trial judge in a post conviction proceeding is for cause under I.C.R. 25(b), which reads as follows:
“Rule 25. Disqualification of judge.—
“(b) Disqualification for cause. Any party to an action may disqualify a judge or magistrate from presiding in any action upon any of the following grounds:
“(1) That he is a party, or is interested, in the action or proceeding.
“(2) That he is related to either party by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, computed according to the rules of law.
“(3) That he has been attorney or counsel for any party in the action or proceeding.
“(4) That he is biased or prejudiced for or against any party or his case in the action.”
Beam’s claim that the trial judge was biased or prejudiced against him rests on the grounds set out in I.C.R. 25(b)(4). Beam’s motion stated that, after this Court had vacated his co-defendant’s death sentence (thus eliminating the possibility of the death sentence), the trial judge disqualified himself from further participation in the co-defendant’s sentencing, stating that he could not “in good conscience impose or sign a judgment upon remand [of Scrog-gins] that is not its [the court’s] own and with which it disagrees.” Beam argues that this statement, along with other statements in the order of disqualification, indicates that the trial judge sharply disagreed with this Court’s action in vacating Scrog-gins’ death penalty and ordering resentenc-ing to a lesser sentence. From this factual stance, Beam argues that the judge was biased and prejudiced against him and therefore should not have presided at either the post conviction or the I.C.R. 35 review proceedings. We disagree with Beam’s contention for the following reasons.
As pointed out in Part I, of the four issues raised in the post conviction relief proceeding, the district court was precluded from considering the first three. This results from the res judicata effect of this Court’s prior decision in Beam’s direct appeal. Beam v. State, 109 Idaho 616, 710 P.2d 526 (1985), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1153, 106 S.Ct. 2260, 90 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986). The fourth issue raised in the post conviction proceeding, regarding the constitutionality of I.C. § 19-2719, is a pure question of law and, as discussed in Part II of this opinion, the trial court’s decision was legally correct. Accordingly, there is no legal merit to any of the claims raised by appellant in the post conviction proceeding, and the issue of trial court prejudice in the post conviction proceeding is essentially moot.
Secondly, Beam’s allegation that the trial judge’s self-imposed disqualification in the Scroggins case demonstrated a predisposition toward his post conviction petition and I.C.R. 35 sentence reduction motion does *215not demonstrate any legally recognizable bias. In order to constitute legal bias or prejudice, allegations of prejudice in post conviction and sentence reduction proceedings must state facts that do more than “simply explain the course of events involved in a criminal trial.” State v. Lankford, 113 Idaho 688, 701, 747 P.2d 710, 723 (1987).
Every trial judge who rules upon a post conviction review proceeding or an I.C.R. 35 motion to reduce sentence will previously have pre-judged the matter, often forming extremely strong opinions as to the sentence which should be imposed, and will no doubt be convinced that the procedure followed and the sentence imposed was correct, particularly where the trial court proceedings have been affirmed on appeal by this Court. It would be an unusual case in which a trial judge, when called upon to rule on an I.C.R. 35 motion to reduce sentence, would not approach the case on the basis that the sentence imposed was correct, and require the defendant to shoulder “the burden of showing that the original sentence was unduly severe.” State v. Martinez, 113 Idaho 535, 536, 746 P.2d 994, 995 (1987). Coming to the case with that frame of mind does not constitute bias or prejudice within the meaning of I.C.R. 25(b)(4) and does not require disqualification of the trial judge. In this case the judge in question had presided at the trial of both Beam and Scroggins. He had heard all of the evidence regarding this brutal murder and raping of an innocent thirteen year old girl. He had presided at the sentencing proceedings in which extensive mitigation and aggravation evidence was presented to the court. Based upon all of that evidence, the trial court then arrived at the judgment that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances and sentenced both defendants to death. The death penalty is reserved for only the most heinous of first degree murders. The very nature of the sentencing process in capital cases requires a trial judge to form strong opinions and convictions that the defendant merits the most severe penalty. It would be extremely unlikely and no doubt improper for a trial court to impose a death penalty unless it had formed the strong opinion and belief that the defendant had no redeeming features, and that the circumstances of the particular case justified the imposition of this most serious penalty known to the law. Accordingly, when a trial judge is called upon to rule upon a petition for post conviction relief, or a motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35, particularly in a case where the death penalty has been imposed, he comes to the case after having already formed strong opinions and beliefs regarding the atrocious nature of the crime, the unredeemable character of the defendant, and the need of society to impose this most serious of criminal penalties. A trial judge is not required to erase from his mind all that has gone before, and indeed, it is doubtful that any human being could. Rather, when faced with an I.C.R. .25(b)(4) motion to disqualify for bias and prejudice in a post conviction or I.C.R. 35 proceeding, the trial judge need only conclude that he can properly perform the legal analysis which the law requires of him, recognizing that he has already prejudged the case and has formed strong and lasting opinions regarding the worth of the defendant and the sentence that ought to be imposed to punish the defendant and protect society.
We conclude that the trial court did not err in refusing to disqualify himself from participating in the post conviction and I.C.R. 35 sentence reduction proceedings in this case merely because he had disqualified himself from further participation in the resentencing of appellant Beam’s co-defendant Scroggins, even though, in the process, he had expressed strong disagreement with this Court’s action in State v. Scroggins, supra, which vacated Scroggins’ death penalty sentence.
IV
Finally, we address Beam’s argument that the trial court erred in refusing to reduce his sentence pursuant to his I.C.R. 35 motion. Rule 35 is designed to allow a trial court to either (a) correct an illegal *216sentence, or (b) correct a sentence imposed in an illegal manner. It authorizes the court to reduce a lawful sentence if, on further reflection, the court believes that it has been unduly harsh. See also Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal 2d § 581 (1982).
“An I.C.R. 35 motion to reduce sentence is essentially a plea for leniency, and a decision thereon is vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing court, State v. Arambula, 97 Idaho 627, 550 P.2d 130 (1976), and the motion may be granted if the sentence originally imposed was for any reason unduly severe. State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Ct.App.1984); State v. Sutton, 106 Idaho 403, 679 P.2d 680 (Ct.App.1984). An I.C.R. 35 motion places on the movant the burden of showing the original sentence was unduly severe.” State v. Martinez, 113 Idaho 535, 536, 746 P.2d 994, 995 (1987) (emphasis added).
Beam’s motion alleged that the sentence was imposed in an illegal manner because it was unduly harsh and disproportionate. Secondly, by implication Beam asked the trial court to be lenient and reduce the sentence which was imposed upon him.
An evaluation of Beam’s motion in light of these rules demonstrates the inadequacy of Beam’s allegations. First the legality and proportionality of his sentence was affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Beam, supra. Thus, the issue of the legality and proportionality of the sentence is res judicata. In effect Beam raised only one ground under I.C.R. 35 that was not already res judicata, and that was an appeal for leniency. As we found in the direct appeal, the sentence imposed was within the statutory limits set out by the legislature and we will not disturb it on appeal absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Seifart, 100 Idaho 321, 597 P.2d 44 (1979); State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 582 P.2d 728 (1978). Whether the trial court abused its discretion by not being lenient and reducing the defendant’s sentence (which this Court approved and affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Beam, supra), “places on the movant the burden of showing that the original sentence was unduly severe.” State v. Martinez, 113 Idaho 535, 536, 746 P.2d 994, 995 (1987). The only showing submitted by Beam in support of his Rule 35 motion was his argument that the sentence was no longer proportional after this Court’s reduction of the sentence of his co-defendant, Scrog-gins. However, the proportionality issue was addressed on direct appeal in State v. Beam, supra, and this Court held that after comparing Beam’s sentence to sentences imposed on all other defendants convicted of first degree murder, Beam’s sentence was not disproportionate. Proportionality review must consider a broad spectrum of first degree murder cases, not just one other case such as the Scroggins case. Additionally, proportionality review requires comparing different human beings with different personalities, traits and backgrounds. In Scroggins’ case, his youth and lack of prior criminal record weighed heavily in this Court’s determination that the imposition of the death penalty was not proportional with sentences imposed in other similar cases. The fact that this Court vacated the sentence in Scrog-gins, based substantially upon his youth and lack of prior criminal involvement, does not render the death penalty imposed in this case disproportionate.
The judgments of the district court are affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and HUNTLEY and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.

. Dictionary definitions of "invidious" include the following:
“[D]etrimental to reputation: defamatory ...: likely to cause discontent or animosity or envy ...: full of envious resentment: jealous ...: of an unpleasant or objectionable nature: hateful, obnoxious ...: causing harm or resentment: injurious_” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, p. 1190 (1971).
"[Sjuch as to bring odium, unpopularity, or envious dislike: ... calculated to excite ill will or resentment or give offense_” American College Dictionary, Text ed., p. 642.

. “STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
RS 10317
"It has been the experience of other state judicial systems that prisoners sentenced to death often attempt to thwart their sentences by drawing out post-conviction review for as long as possible. Accordingly, it is not uncommon to find capital prisoners filing numerous separate claims for post-conviction and habeas corpus relief, hoping to spend several years appealing each such claim separately.
"This statute seeks to avoid such abuses of legal process by requiring that all collateral claims *213for relief that are known or that reasonably should be known be consolidated in one proceeding to be conducted prior to appeal or automatic review. It is the goal of this procedure to limit, as far as possible, post-conviction appellate review of death sentences to a single appeal in which all bona fide issues are to he raised. “The statute also provides procedures for dealing with stays of execution in order to provide clearer guidelines to state courts confronted with demands for stay of execution. "Under this statute, capital cases are to receive first priority in the courts for the purpose of further reducing delays in resolving capital cases." Statement of Purpose accompanying S.B. No. 1345, approved April 2, 1984 (on file at Idaho State Law Library).

. Peremptory or automatic disqualification of a judge is governed by either I.C.R. 25 or I.R.C.P. 40(d)(1). Both of those rules, as they existed when this action was instituted, specifically provide that:
"The right to one (1) automatic disqualification under this rule shall not apply to a post conviction proceeding under chapter 49 of title 19, Idaho Code, when that proceeding has been assigned to the judge who entered the judgment and sentence being challenged by that proceeding....”
In 1987 these rules were redrafted. However, both I.C.R. 25(a)(9)(h) and I.R.C.P. 40(d)(l)(I)(ii) still clearly point out that post conviction proceedings are an exception to an applicant’s right to automatic disqualification. The present I.R.C.P. 40(d)(l)(I)(ii) reads:
“(I) Exceptions. Notwithstanding the above provisions, the right to disqualification without cause shall not apply to:
"(ii) A judge or magistrate in a post-conviction proceeding, when that proceeding has been assigned to the judge or magistrate who entered the judgment of conviction or sentence being challenged by the post-conviction proceeding.”
I.C.R. 25(a)(9)(ii), I.C.R. 35 and Federal Criminal Rule 35 are all identical. Federal case law clearly indicates that, under Rule 35, motions to correct or reduce a sentence are to be heard by the court that rendered the original judgment and sentence. See Wright, Federal Practice & Procedure: Criminal (Second) § 582 (1982).