Frank D. Marks v. State
Background
- Marks was convicted at his second trial of three counts of lewd conduct with a minor and sentenced to concurrent life terms with 30-year minimums; his conviction and denial of a Rule 35 motion were previously affirmed on direct appeal.
- Marks filed a verified petition for post-conviction relief raising various claims including ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of a fair trial; the State answered and moved to dismiss.
- Before the State moved to summarily dismiss, Marks filed a motion to supplement his petition to add two claims based on alleged recantation/fabrication by a jailhouse informant; the district court denied the motion.
- The district court then granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal of the post-conviction petition, concluding Marks failed to present admissible evidence or raise issues not forfeited on direct appeal.
- Marks appealed, arguing (1) the court abused its discretion by denying his motion to supplement, (2) the court erred in summarily dismissing his claim that the State’s failure to conduct forensic exams denied him a fair trial, and (3) the court failed to address three claims in its dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to supplement petition (I.R.C.P. 15(d) vs other rule) | The district court misapplied 15(d) and improperly analyzed merits without notice; abused discretion by denying supplementation | The motion was properly denied (claims arose from trial events predating petition); Marks invited the 15(d) analysis | Denial affirmed: claims arose from trial period so 15(d) inapplicable and denial proper; invited error doctrine bars complaint about choice of rule |
| Summary dismissal of claim that State’s failure to conduct forensic examinations denied fair trial | Marks: lack of forensic exams deprived him of a fair trial; facts for claim rely on development in post-conviction proceedings | State: issue could have been raised on direct appeal; State had no duty to force victims to submit to exams; Marks offered no factual proof | Affirmed: claim forfeited or fails as a matter of law—Marks gave no evidentiary showing tying absence of exams to unreliable verdict and no basis that State had duty to compel exams |
| Failure to address three specific claims in dismissal order | Marks: district court failed to rule on three claims and remand is required | State: Marks waived by not seeking post-judgment relief or specific findings below | Affirmed: issue waived for appeal because Marks did not pursue post-judgment remedies to obtain findings below |
| Invited error doctrine (procedural posture) | Marks contends rule-selection was irrelevant because court didn’t apply 15(d) merits process | State: Marks invited any procedural mischaracterization by asking for 15(d) treatment | Affirmed: invited error prevents reversal when claimant proposed the procedure used |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (discussing post-conviction as civil and review standards) (post-conviction proceedings are civil and appellate review standards)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (post-conviction pleading/evidence requirements) (verified petition must be supported by admissible evidence)
- Jones v. Watson, 98 Idaho 606 (trial court discretion to grant or deny amendment) (amendment/supplement decisions are discretionary)
- Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power Co., 119 Idaho 87 (abuse-of-discretion review framework) (three-part test for appellate review of discretion)
- Parsons v. State, 113 Idaho 421 (when post-conviction may present facts beyond trial record) (post-conviction proper for facts not developed at trial)
- Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671 (standards for affirming summary dismissal) (appellate court may affirm on correct theory even if lower court used wrong rationale)