Jared Josiah Wilson v. State
Background
- Wilson was charged with failure to register as a sex offender and two counts of lewd conduct with a minor; the cases were consolidated for trial with Wilson’s agreement.
- Trial counsel sought consolidation to avoid a persistent‑violator enhancement; counsel later learned Wilson had multiple prior felonies making him eligible for the enhancement regardless of consolidation.
- The State agreed it would not seek a persistent‑violator enhancement if the consolidated trial proceeded; Wilson was convicted by a jury (one conviction later vacated on direct appeal for the registration charge).
- Wilson filed a verified pro se post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance for (1) agreeing to consolidate the cases and (2) failing to call family witnesses and present medical/driving/employment records.
- The district court granted the State’s motion for summary dismissal; on appeal the Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact warranting an evidentiary hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for consenting to consolidate cases? | Wilson: counsel failed to investigate criminal history and mistakenly believed consolidation would preclude a persistent‑violator enhancement, so consolidation was deficient and prejudicial. | State: counsel’s later decision to keep consolidation was strategic; the State agreed not to seek the enhancement, so no prejudice. | Affirmed: no ineffective assistance; consolidation remained strategic and avoided the enhancement. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not calling family witnesses? | Wilson: family affidavits would have rebutted victim’s timeline and access, undermining guilt at alleged times/places. | State: affidavits cover only portions of timeframe; counsel cross‑examined on same points; tactical decision not to call witnesses. | Affirmed: no deficiency or prejudice shown; evidence would not have disproved charges. |
| Was counsel ineffective for not introducing medical/driving/employment records? | Wilson: records show license suspensions and injuries that would make driving (and alleged abuse in car) impossible during parts of the timeframe. | State: records show only partial suspensions/injuries; do not prove inability to drive for entire period; tactical choice. | Affirmed: records did not establish impossibility or complete alibi and would not likely change verdict. |
| Did Wilson present admissible evidence creating a genuine factual dispute requiring an evidentiary hearing? | Wilson: verified petition, affidavits, and records create material issues about counsel’s performance and prejudice. | State: evidence insufficient to make prima facie showing; claims are conclusory or fail to negate opportunities for offense. | Affirmed: no genuine issue of material fact; summary dismissal proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758 (1988) (attorney performance judged against objective standard of reasonableness)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (1994) (post‑conviction petition must be supported by admissible evidence; summary dismissal standards)
- Caldwell v. State, 159 Idaho 233 (2015) (strategic decisions of trial counsel will not be second‑guessed absent inadequate preparation or other objective shortcomings)