Jimmy D. Leytham v. State
160 Idaho 764
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Leytham pleaded guilty to forgery and later filed a petition for post-conviction relief asserting multiple ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims.
- Alleged deficiencies: counsel failed to return calls, refused to seek a binding plea, refused to seek recusal of the judge, failed to contact Leytham before a hearing, sent an unfamiliar law partner to a hearing, misadvised Leytham he would receive probation, and told Leytham to deny promises at the plea hearing.
- Leytham filed an affidavit supporting these factual allegations and moved for discovery to depose trial counsel.
- The district court denied discovery as a fishing expedition, finding Leytham’s affidavit provided the available personal knowledge and discovery was unnecessary.
- The state moved for summary dismissal; the district court dismissed the petition, concluding Leytham’s allegations were contradicted by the plea and sentencing record and thus failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
- Leytham appealed, challenging denial of discovery and the summary dismissal; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying discovery to depose trial counsel | Discovery was necessary to corroborate Leytham’s affidavit and vindicate his right to counsel | Discovery unnecessary because Leytham had personal knowledge and his affidavit constituted admissible evidence; request was a fishing expedition | Denial affirmed — discovery not necessary to protect substantial rights where petitioner’s affidavit provided the available evidence |
| Whether summary dismissal of ineffective-assistance claim was proper where counsel allegedly promised probation | Counsel told Leytham he would get probation, which would have changed Leytham’s decision to plead | Plea colloquy cured any alleged promise; court informed Leytham no promises were binding and Leytham acknowledged understanding | Dismissal affirmed — record (plea colloquy) disproved the allegation and cured any counsel misadvice |
| Whether Leytham was uninformed about restitution of ~$55,000 | Leytham claims he was not told he agreed to pay large restitution | Plea and sentencing record show explicit statements that restitution (including the $55,331.92 amount) was negotiated and Leytham agreed | Dismissal affirmed — record shows Leytham understood restitution obligation |
| Whether medication rendered Leytham incapable of understanding plea | Leytham contends medications impaired his capacity to plead knowingly | Plea court examined Leytham, found him coherent and capable; prosecutor, defense counsel, and Leytham agreed | Dismissal affirmed — record disproves incapacity claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Raudebaugh v. State, 135 Idaho 602, 21 P.3d 924 (2001) (denial of discovery justified where claims are speculative and amount to fishing expedition)
- Murphy v. State, 143 Idaho 139, 139 P.3d 741 (Ct. App. 2006) (discovery in post-conviction not required unless necessary to protect substantial rights)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 152 P.3d 629 (Ct. App. 2006) (prejudice showing after guilty plea requires reasonable probability petitioner would have gone to trial)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64, 266 P.3d 1169 (Ct. App. 2011) (petition must be supported by admissible evidence or face dismissal)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 873 P.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1994) (court not required to accept conclusory allegations unsupported by admissible evidence)
- Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517, 236 P.3d 1277 (2010) (grounds for summary dismissal of post-conviction claims)
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247, 220 P.3d 1066 (2009) (standards of review on post-conviction appeals)