Jeremy Ray Wheeler v. State
Background
- Jeremy Wheeler was charged with methamphetamine possession and being a persistent violator; he moved to suppress evidence but the district court denied the motion.
- Wheeler executed a guilty plea; his written plea form indicated he reserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling, but at the plea hearing he orally stated he was not reserving that right and the court accepted the plea.
- The court retained jurisdiction at sentencing; Wheeler later elected not to complete the rider, the court relinquished jurisdiction, and counsel filed a notice of appeal that was timely only as to relinquishment of jurisdiction, not the earlier suppression ruling.
- While the appeal was pending, Wheeler filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging five ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, including counsel’s failure to timely appeal the judgment of conviction (thereby losing the right to challenge the suppression ruling).
- The district court granted summary dismissal: it treated the timely-appeal claim as duplicative of the pending appeal and found the remaining ineffective-assistance claims unsupported or contradicted by the guilty plea questionnaire; Wheeler appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to timely file an appeal from the judgment of conviction, causing loss of right to appeal denial of the suppression motion | Wheeler: counsel’s failure to timely appeal deprived him of ability to challenge suppression ruling | State: Wheeler failed to preserve suppression issue by not entering a conditional plea; therefore no prejudice from counsel’s failure to appeal | Court: Wheeler did not preserve suppression issue (oral plea waived reservation); counsel not ineffective; summary dismissal affirmed |
| Whether this court should re-address merits of the suppression ruling in post-conviction proceedings | Wheeler: asks re-examination of suppression ruling based on additional evidence | State: post-conviction is not a substitute for appeal; issues that were or could have been raised on appeal are barred | Court: Declined to address suppression merits in post-conviction appeal; barred by scope of post-conviction relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (discusses civil nature and standards for post-conviction proceedings)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (petition must contain admissible evidence; courts need not accept conclusory allegations)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (post-conviction petition must be accompanied by supporting evidence or be dismissed)
- Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517 (grounds for summary dismissal of post-conviction claims)
- Kelchner v. State, 130 Idaho 37 (valid guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional defects; conditional pleas preserve specified rulings)
- Watts v. State, 131 Idaho 782 (oral pronouncement controls when inconsistent with written plea)
- Knutsen v. State, 144 Idaho 433 (post-conviction is not a substitute for direct appeal)