Michael Koch v. State
Background
- Michael Koch was convicted by a jury of four counts of lewd conduct with a minor; the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal in State v. Koch.
- Koch filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief alleging multiple claims, including that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the search of his home and the validity of the search warrant.
- The State moved for summary dismissal, arguing Koch’s claims were conclusory, lacked admissible supporting evidence, and failed to show prejudice.
- The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss and later held a hearing; at the hearing Koch made unsworn assertions that the search occurred before the warrant was issued but did not thereafter submit the warrant or a sworn affidavit.
- The district court summarily dismissed the petition primarily because the claims were conclusory, unsupported by admissible evidence, and showed no prejudice; Koch appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court failed to give 20 days' notice before dismissing on grounds beyond the State’s motion | Koch: court didn’t give required 20 days after notifying intent to dismiss | State: court relied on same grounds asserted in its motion, so notice requirement satisfied | Court: Notice satisfied because dismissal relied in part on the State’s asserted grounds and the motion was filed well before dismissal |
| Whether Koch raised a genuine issue of material fact that trial counsel was ineffective for not challenging the search/warrant | Koch: at the hearing argued search occurred 10 days before warrant and counsel should have challenged it | State: Koch’s petition and hearing statements were conclusory and unsupported by admissible evidence (no warrant or sworn affidavit) | Court: Koch’s unsworn hearing statements and conclusory petition insufficient; summary dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319 (notice required when court relies on sua sponte grounds) (1995)
- Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517 (notice requirement met if court relies on same grounds as State’s motion) (2010)
- State v. Koch, 157 Idaho 89 (affirming underlying conviction) (2014)
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (post-conviction proceedings civil in nature) (2009)
- Wolf v. State, 152 Idaho 64 (petition must be supported by admissible evidence) (2011)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (conclusory allegations insufficient at summary dismissal) (1994)
- Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269 (burden to prove post-conviction claims by preponderance) (Ct. App. 2002)
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (if evidence would entitle petitioner to relief, no summary dismissal) (2004)
- Sheahan v. State, 146 Idaho 101 (genuine factual dispute requires evidentiary hearing) (Ct. App. 2008)