Jason Ward v. State
Background
- Jason Ward was charged with rape; initially entered an I.C.R. 11 plea but withdrew the plea after counsel’s misstatement of law; later convicted of rape and persistent violator status after a jury trial.
- Ward’s direct appeal affirming his conviction was previously decided by this Court.
- Ward filed a pro se post-conviction petition, was appointed counsel, and then filed an amended petition alleging five ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims and a cumulative-error claim.
- Ward also filed a pro se motion seeking conflict-free post-conviction counsel; the district court did not rule on that motion before summarily dismissing the amended petition.
- The district court dismissed all post-conviction claims on summary disposition, finding Ward failed to produce admissible evidence showing counsel was deficient; Ward appealed pro se.
- On appeal Ward raised (1) newly discovered evidence, (2) error in failing to rule on his motion for conflict-free post-conviction counsel, and (3) cumulative error; the Court affirmed dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Newly discovered evidence claim | Ward contends newly discovered evidence (witness investigation re: victim’s prior accusations) should have supported relief | State: claim not presented below; petitioner bears burden of attaching admissible evidence to petition | Court: declined to consider claim raised first on appeal; denial affirmed; post-conviction counsel ineffectiveness not a cognizable basis for relief |
| Failure to rule on motion for conflict-free post-conviction counsel | Ward argues district court erred by not ruling on his motion for conflict-free counsel | State: petitioners have no right to effective or conflict-free counsel in post-conviction proceedings; any error would be harmless | Court: even if error, harmless; no right to conflict-free counsel in post-conviction proceedings; dismissal stands |
| Cumulative error | Ward asserts the aggregate of trial counsel errors deprived him of a fair proceeding | State: cumulative-error doctrine requires at least one actual error; Ward failed to show any single deficient act | Court: affirmed dismissal—no individual errors proven, so cumulative-error claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (2009) (standard of review and nature of post-conviction proceedings)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (2011) (petition must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (1993) (limits on accepting conclusory allegations at summary dismissal)
- Murphy v. State, 156 Idaho 389 (2013) (no constitutional right to effective assistance in post-conviction proceedings)
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (2004) (if petition and supporting evidence allege facts entitling relief, summary dismissal is improper)
- Stevens v. State, 156 Idaho 396 (2013) (cumulative-error doctrine requires initial finding of error)