Jeremy Ray Wheeler v. State
162 Idaho 357
| Idaho | 2017Background
- Wheeler was charged with possession of methamphetamine and a persistent-violator allegation; he moved to suppress evidence and the motion was denied.
- Wheeler executed a written plea advisory indicating a conditional guilty plea reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; in court he pleaded guilty in exchange for dismissal of other charges and the persistent-violator allegation.
- Sentenced to seven years (three fixed); jurisdiction was initially retained and later relinquished.
- Trial counsel filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal the suppression ruling and sentence; SAPD advised Wheeler the suppression appeal was untimely and recommended a post-conviction ineffective-assistance claim.
- Wheeler filed a pro se post-conviction petition alleging counsel failed to timely appeal the suppression denial; the district court summarily dismissed the petition on the basis that an appeal was pending as to relinquishment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Idaho Supreme Court granted review, found a genuine factual dispute about whether Wheeler reserved the suppression issue in his guilty plea (written form vs. colloquy), vacated the dismissal, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wheeler preserved the right to appeal the suppression ruling when he entered a conditional guilty plea | Wheeler relied on the written plea advisory which unambiguously reserved the suppression issue for appeal | State relied on the plea colloquy where Wheeler answered that he was not immediately reserving the issue, arguing the oral remarks show he did not preserve the appeal | There is a genuine issue of material fact because the written advisory and oral colloquy conflict; summary dismissal was improper |
| Whether Wheeler stated a meritorious ineffective-assistance claim for failure to appeal | Wheeler contends counsel failed to file a requested appeal of the suppression ruling, which, if true, establishes prejudice per precedent | State did not dispute the legal principle but argued Wheeler did not preserve the issue by plea | Court reaffirmed that loss of an appeal when requested can constitute sufficient prejudice and remanded to resolve factual questions |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-part deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671 (discusses Strickland framework in Idaho context)
- Gosch v. State, 154 Idaho 71 (loss of appellate right due to counsel’s failure to appeal can constitute sufficient prejudice)
- Beasley v. State, 126 Idaho 356 (discusses remedy of delayed appeal when counsel fails to file appeal)
- State v. Watts, 131 Idaho 782 (oral pronouncement controls over clerical or written disparity; cited for principle that colloquy can control written form)