Macklin v. State
48165
| Idaho Ct. App. | Dec 9, 2021Background:
- Macklin pled guilty to grand theft, received a five-year determinate sentence that was suspended and placed on probation.
- After earlier proceedings, the trial court later suspended the sentence again and required completion of drug court as a condition of probation; Macklin was later terminated from drug court.
- The State moved to revoke probation for failure to complete drug court; Macklin admitted the violation and conceded he was rightfully terminated from drug court; the trial court executed the sentence and this Court affirmed the revocation.
- Macklin filed a post-conviction petition alleging, among other claims, that probation-revocation counsel was ineffective for not requesting a hearing challenging his drug-court termination; an evidentiary hearing was held.
- The district court sustained the States relevance objection when Macklin tried to testify about what he learned in drug court, found counsels decision not to pursue a challenge reasonable and non-prejudicial, and dismissed the petition; Macklin appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about "what he learned" in drug court | Macklin: testimony shows relevance and would support claim counsel should have sought a hearing | State: testimony irrelevant to ineffective-assistance claim; exclusion harmless | Court: Macklins argument on relevance was conclusory and forfeited; court did not review exclusion on merits |
| Effectiveness of counsel for not requesting a hearing to contest drug-court termination | Macklin: counsel should have requested a Rogers-type hearing; a hearing likely would have led to readmission and avoided revocation | State: counsel reasonably concluded a belated challenge would be fruitless; witnesses would have confirmed violations | Court: No deficient performance or prejudice; drug-court record showed credibility problems and violations, so no reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Lint v. State, 145 Idaho 472 (court may assess probability of success of unfiled motion when evaluating counsels inaction)
- Rogers v. State, 144 Idaho 738 (discusses hearing procedures in drug-court/admission contexts; facts differ from this case)
- Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758 (articulates objective-reasonableness standard for counsel performance)
- Jeske v. State, 164 Idaho 862 (conclusory appellate arguments without developed analysis foreclose review)