Alexander Santos Fagundes
Background
- Fagundes pled guilty to felony DUI and was sentenced to an eight-year unified term with two years minimum confinement; he did not appeal the conviction.
- He filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to respond to requests, advise on plea consequences, interview witnesses) and sought only a reduction of his sentence.
- Fagundes requested appointment of post-conviction counsel; the district court denied counsel as it deemed the petition frivolous and unlikely to be one a paying client would file.
- The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss, finding the allegations conclusory and noting that even if true the requested relief (sentence reduction) is not obtainable via post-conviction proceedings; Fagundes did not respond.
- The court entered judgment summarily dismissing the petition; Fagundes appealed, arguing the court applied the wrong standard in denying appointed counsel.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding any error in the counsel-denial standard was harmless because sentence reduction must be sought via I.C.R. 35, not post-conviction relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for appointment of post-conviction counsel | District court erred by applying a "frivolousness" test instead of whether the petition alleged facts showing possibility of a valid claim | District court characterized petition as frivolous and unlikely to be pursued by a paying client; denied counsel | Court: district court used wrong terminology but any error was harmless because requested relief not available in post-conviction proceedings |
| Sufficiency of petition's allegations | Allegations of ineffective assistance (no evidence attached) raised possible claims that counsel failed to advise and investigate | State: allegations were conclusory, unsupported by admissible evidence and disproven as a matter of law for relief sought | Court: allegations were conclusory and insufficient; dismissal proper because petitioner failed to present admissible evidence supporting claims |
| Availability of requested relief via post-conviction petition | Fagundes sought reduction of sentence through post-conviction petition | State: reduction of sentence must be sought via I.C.R. 35; not a remedy available in post-conviction proceedings | Court: reduction of sentence is not a basis for post-conviction relief; petition properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (2009) (post-conviction proceedings are civil and appellate review standard explained)
- Grant v. State, 156 Idaho 598 (2014) (standards and discretion for appointing post-conviction counsel)
- Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651 (2007) (appoint counsel when petition alleges facts showing possibility of a valid claim)
- Newman v. State, 140 Idaho 491 (2006) (notice of intent to dismiss must enable petitioner to supplement allegations)
- Williams v. State, 113 Idaho 685 (1987) (reduction of sentence is not available via post-conviction relief)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (1993) (conclusory allegations unsupported by admissible evidence may be disregarded on summary dismissal)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (2011) (petition must be accompanied by admissible evidence or state why such evidence is unavailable)