Alisha Ann Murphy v. State
156 Idaho 389
| Idaho | 2014Background
- Murphy was convicted of first-degree murder in 2001; direct appeal affirmed.
- Murphy timely filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition asserting numerous claims; district court dismissed.
- Court of Appeals remanded several claims and funded a forensic pathologist for on-remand proceedings; evidentiary hearing addressed multiple issues.
- Murphy’s counsel waived most remaining claims; district court denied post-conviction relief.
- During the third appeal, Murphy filed a successive post-conviction petition re-raising some claims and seeking counsel; district court denied appointment of counsel and dismissed.
- Court of Appeals reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded for counsel appointment on one claim; Idaho Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel is a sufficient reason for a successive petition | Murphy: Palmer allows this as sufficient reason | State: no right to post-conviction counsel; cannot rely on counsel ineffectiveness | No; Palmer overruled; not sufficient reason |
| Whether the district court erred in denying appointment of counsel | Murphy: appointment needed due to potential claims | State: discretionary denial appropriate | Affirmed; no error in denial |
| Whether the district court correctly dismissed the successive petition | Murphy: asserted grounds not adequately raised previously | State: petition lacked sufficient possibility of valid claims | affirmed |
| Whether the due process and record augmentation issues were properly resolved | Murphy: district court violated due process by certain augmentations | State: rulings were proper under evidence rules and record | No due process violation; augmentation proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Palmer v. Dermitt, 102 Idaho 591 (1981) (ineffective post-conviction counsel not sufficient reason for successive petition)
- Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (no constitutional right to counsel in state post-conviction proceedings)
- Bejarano v. Warden, 929 P.2d 922 (Nev. 1996) (no guaranteed counsel; avoids endless petitions)
- Row v. State, 135 Idaho 573 (2001) (ineffectiveness of post-conviction counsel not grounds for relief)