Christopher A. Pentico v. State
159 Idaho 350
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Pentico was charged with trespass after allegedly returning to government property despite a notice prohibiting him from the Capitol Annex and Borah Building areas.
- He was convicted at trial and his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal.
- He filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and arguing I.C. § 18-7008(A)(8) is unconstitutional.
- The magistrate dismissed the petition; the district court affirmed; Pentico appealed again.
- The court analyzes due process and ineffective assistance claims under the post-conviction relief framework and reviews summaries of facts in light of admissible evidence.
- The court ultimately affirms the district court’s summary dismissal, finding no due process violation or prejudice from counsel’s performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Due process challenge to I.C. § 18-7008(A)(8) as applied | Pentico argues the exclusion and one-year ban violate due process | Pentico contends the statute is unconstitutional as applied to his First Amendment rights | No due process violation; statute constitutional as applied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel claim | Counsel's performance deficient for not challenging March 25 exclusion on First Amendment grounds | Counsel's decisions were strategic and not proven deficient or prejudicial | No prejudice; cannot show a reasonable probability of different outcome with challenged performance |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (U.S. 2003) (public forum analysis; nonexpressive conduct supports trespass charge)
- United Mine Workers of America, Dist. 12 v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n, 389 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1967) (right to petition is a liberty interest essential to First Amendment)
- R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1992) (content-neutral time/place restrictions allowed when not based on content)
- United States v. Alvarez, 132 S. Ct. 2537 (U.S. 2012) (speech rights and First Amendment protections; not applied where conduct is nonexpressive)
- Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269 (Ct. App. 2002) (post-conviction evidentiary burden; admissible evidence required)
- Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671 (Ct. App. 2010) (standard for appellate review of post-conviction dismissals)
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (Ct. App. 2009) (procedural framework for post-conviction review)