Jordan Marie Shaver v. State
Background
- Jordan Marie Shaver pled guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life with a 20-year minimum.
- Shaver filed an Idaho Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence; the district court denied it and this Court previously affirmed.
- Shaver then filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, that her guilty plea was induced by unkept promises, and that her sentence was disproportionate.
- The State answered, asserting res judicata as to the disproportionate-sentence claim and sought summary dismissal “in light of the pleadings, answers, admissions, and the record.”
- The district court granted summary dismissal, relying on res judicata to dispose of the disproportionate-sentence claim.
- Shaver appealed only the district court’s summary dismissal of the disproportionate-sentence claim, arguing she lacked adequate notice because the State’s separate motion did not expressly cite res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by summarily dismissing Shaver’s disproportionate-sentence claim without giving 20-day notice under I.C. § 19-4906(b) | Shaver: court had to give 20-day notice because the State’s motion for summary dismissal did not expressly raise res judicata as the ground relied upon | State: res judicata was raised in the State’s answer and the motion incorporated the pleadings/answer, so Shaver had adequate notice | Affirmed — no error: the answer notified Shaver of the res judicata basis and the motion incorporated the answer, so additional notice was not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247, 220 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2009) (post-conviction proceedings are civil actions and standards for proof)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 873 P.2d 898 (Ct. App. 1994) (court need not accept conclusory allegations without admissible evidence on summary dismissal)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64, 266 P.3d 1169 (Ct. App. 2011) (petition must include or be accompanied by admissible evidence or be dismissed)
- Crabtree v. State, 144 Idaho 489, 163 P.3d 1204 (Ct. App. 2006) (district court must provide 20-day notice under I.C. § 19-4906(b) when it intends to dismiss claims)
- Newman v. State, 140 Idaho 491, 95 P.3d 642 (Ct. App. 2004) (notice must sufficiently identify basis for dismissal to permit supplementation)
- Christensen, 102 Idaho 487, 632 P.2d 676 (Idaho 1981) (subsection (c) motion itself can serve as notice)
- Gibbs v. State, 103 Idaho 758, 653 P.2d 813 (Ct. App. 1982) (court must give notice when dismissal is based on grounds not raised by the State)
- Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 900 P.2d 795 (Idaho 1995) (general request for dismissal in an answer is insufficient; a proper motion is required)
- Workman v. State, 144 Idaho 518, 164 P.3d 798 (Idaho 2007) (an answer can suffice under § 19-4906(c) if it puts the petitioner on notice of the basis for summary dismissal)