Jay Wayne Newberry v. State
Background
- In 2009 Newberry pled guilty to felony DUI; received an 8-year unified sentence with 2-year minimum, suspended and placed on eight years probation.
- Probation was converted to unsupervised in Feb 2013; in June 2014 Newberry violated probation and was returned to supervised probation; in Oct 2014 he was convicted of a second DUI in another county and the court revoked probation, executed the underlying sentence, and reduced it.
- Newberry filed a post-conviction petition alleging: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to move to suppress a 2009 blood draw; (2) his admission of probation violation was not knowing and voluntary; (3) ineffective assistance for failing to file an I.C.R. 35 motion; and (4) his sentence was excessive because he was on unsupervised probation and thus not subject to revocation.
- The State moved for summary dismissal; after a hearing the district court granted the motion and dismissed the petition. Newberry appealed.
- The district court dismissed the blood-draw ineffective-assistance claim as time-barred under the one-year post-conviction statute of limitations; found the probation-admission was knowing and voluntary; found no prejudice from the alleged Rule 35 omission; and rejected the excessive-sentence claim as unsupported and legally meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Newberry's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of ineffective-assistance claim re: 2009 blood draw | Newberry: counsel should have moved to suppress the blood draw | State: claim is untimely—one-year post-conviction limitations expired Jan 22, 2011 | Dismissed as time-barred |
| Validity of probation-violation admission | Newberry: admission was not knowing/voluntary; he didn't understand reinstated probation terms | State: record shows he was advised of rights/consequences and understood when he admitted violation | Admission was knowing and voluntary; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance for not filing I.C.R. 35 motion | Newberry: counsel refused/request failed to file a Rule 35 motion for further reduction | State: Newberry cannot show deficiency-caused prejudice or any reasonable probability of a different outcome | Dismissed—no Strickland prejudice shown |
| Excessive sentence / status of unsupervised probation | Newberry: unsupervised probation meant probation ended; thus court lacked authority to revoke or impose sentence | State: unsupervised probation is still probation; Newberry cites no supporting law; claim waived | Dismissed—no legal basis; sentencing valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective assistance standard)
- State v. Klingler, 143 Idaho 494 (unsupervised probation remains subject to correctional oversight)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (post-conviction summary dismissal standards)
- Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269 (burden of proof in post-conviction proceedings)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (petition must be supported by admissible evidence)
- Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671 (appellate review of summary dismissal)
- Barcella v. State, 148 Idaho 469 (ineffective-assistance cognizable in post-conviction petition)
- Leary v. State, 160 Idaho 349 (post-conviction not the proper vehicle for certain sentence-credit claims)