Kirk Julliard Gosch v. State
154 Idaho 71
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gosch was convicted by jury of manufacturing a controlled substance, possession with intent to deliver, and possession of marijuana over three ounces.
- Gosch filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file an appeal after Gosch requested it.
- Evidence at the evidentiary hearing showed Gosch told counsel he wanted to appeal, but he did not schedule a follow-up appointment and did not pursue further contact with counsel.
- The district court found no deficient performance or prejudice and dismissed the petition.
- The Idaho Court of Appeals vacated the district court decision, holding that Gosch’s unequivocal post-verdict request to appeal imposed a duty on counsel to file, and prejudice is presumed when counsel fails to file an appeal.
- The case is remanded for entry of an amended conviction judgment to permit a timely appeal; costs awarded to Gosch.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was counsel ineffective for failing to file an appeal after Gosch’s unequivocal request? | Gosch | Gosch's counsel | Yes; failure to file violated constitutional duty; prejudice presumed. |
| Does Beasley apply to Gosch’s case to require an amended judgment to allow appeal? | Gosch | State | Yes; Beasley governs when counsel fails to file an appeal after a request. |
| Can dismissal be sustained where there was confusion about timing of the request? | Gosch | State | No; post-verdict unequivocal request obligates filing; district court erred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. State, 126 Idaho 356, 883 P.2d 714 (Ct. App. 1994) (loss of right to appeal due to counsel’s failure to file supports ineffective assistance claim; prejudice presumed)
- Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (1999) (filing a notice of appeal is a ministerial task; defendant’s reliance on counsel to file)
- Sanders v. State, 117 Idaho 939, 792 P.2d 964 (Ct. App. 1990) (credibility determinations about whether defendant communicated desire to appeal)
- State v. Dillard, 110 Idaho 834, 718 P.2d 1272 (Ct. App. 1986) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance claims in post-conviction context)
- Flores v. State, 104 Idaho 191, 657 P.2d 488 (Ct. App. 1983) (communication of desire to appeal and counsel’s duty to file)
- Mata v. State, 124 Idaho 588, 861 P.2d 1253 (Ct. App. 1993) (development of appellate decision rights post-conviction)