Martin Edmo Ish v. State
Background
- Martin Edmo Ish was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and being a persistent violator; this Court previously vacated the persistent violator conviction and remanded for resentencing on the possession count.
- Ish filed a petition for post-conviction relief alleging, among other claims, that trial counsel was ineffective for requesting a jury instruction that allegedly lowered the State’s burden of proof on the possession charge.
- The district court summarily dismissed the petition, ruling the jury-instruction claim was procedurally barred for failure to raise it on direct appeal, that the instruction correctly stated the law, and that Ish failed to show prejudice.
- On appeal the State conceded the district court erred in finding the claim procedurally barred and that the instruction was an incorrect statement of law, but argued Ish still failed to show prejudice.
- Ish did not include the underlying criminal trial record in the post-conviction appellate record or move to augment it; the Court declined to consider records not designated on appeal and held that without that record Ish could not establish prejudice.
- The Court affirmed the summary dismissal of Ish’s petition because the appellant bears the burden of presenting a sufficient record to prove prejudice and Ish failed to do so.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ish’s ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel’s requested jury instruction was procedurally barred | Ish argued the claim was preserved for post-conviction relief and not procedurally barred | State conceded the district court erred in finding the claim procedurally barred | Court agreed the procedural-bar ruling was erroneous (State conceded error) |
| Whether the jury instruction lowered the State’s burden and whether counsel’s conduct prejudiced Ish | Ish argued the instruction misstated law, lowered the State’s burden, and counsel’s request was prejudicial | State agreed the instruction was incorrect but argued Ish failed to demonstrate prejudice absent the underlying record | Court held instruction was incorrect but Ish failed to prove prejudice because he did not include the underlying trial record on appeal, so summary dismissal was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes deficiency and prejudice standard for ineffective-assistance claims)
- Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758 (discusses objective standard of reasonableness for attorney performance)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (post-conviction petition must be supported by admissible evidence; exhibits and criminal record must be presented to be part of the post-conviction record)
- Esquivel v. State, 149 Idaho 255 (criminal-record material from the underlying case is not part of the post-conviction record unless properly presented or judicially noticed)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (petition must present admissible evidence or be dismissed)
- Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517 (grounds for summary dismissal of post-conviction claims)