Neil G. Patterson v. State
Background
- Patterson pled guilty to felony DUI; State dismissed a persistent-violator enhancement in the plea deal; court sentenced him to a unified 6-year term with 2 years determinate and initially retained jurisdiction, later relinquished.
- Patterson appealed his sentence; this Court affirmed in an unpublished decision.
- Patterson then filed a post-conviction petition alleging counsel coerced his guilty plea by promising placement in a specific rider program and eventual probation; he also sought appointment of post-conviction counsel.
- The State moved to dismiss and opposed appointment, attaching Patterson’s guilty plea questionnaire which described the plea terms and indicated voluntariness.
- The district court denied appointment of counsel and summarily dismissed the petition, finding the allegations bare, contradicted by the plea questionnaire, and failing to raise a possibility of a valid claim.
- Patterson appealed, arguing the court abused discretion by resolving counsel-appointment before addressing merits and that his allegations raised a viable ineffective-assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion by denying appointment of post-conviction counsel in same order that dismissed petition | Patterson: court ruled on merits before properly applying appointment standard; must evaluate entitlement to counsel first | State: court may deny appointment if allegations are frivolous and failure to meet appointment standard shown; court applied correct standard | No abuse; court considered appointment first and applied correct standard; denial upheld |
| Whether Patterson’s petition alleged facts raising possibility of a valid ineffective-assistance claim | Patterson: counsel promised specific rider program and probation; plea involuntary; counsel coerced plea | State: allegations are bare, conclusory, contradicted by guilty plea form, and disproven by record | Petition failed to raise possibility of valid claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether counsel’s sentencing predictions, if inaccurate, render plea involuntary | Patterson: promise of rider/probation was a binding inducement | State: counsel’s good-faith predictions do not make pleas involuntary absent affirmative showing of bad faith or incompetence | Court: inaccurate, good-faith predictions do not invalidate plea; no evidence of bad faith or inadequate preparation |
| Whether Patterson established prejudice under Strickland (would not have pled but for counsel’s errors) | Patterson: bald assertion of prejudice and probable different outcome | State: no factual support for prejudice; plea questionnaire indicates voluntariness and no promise of probation | Court: Patterson failed to allege or prove prejudice; Strickland standard not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant v. State, 156 Idaho 598, 329 P.3d 380 (Ct. App. 2014) (standard for appointment of post-conviction counsel and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Fox v. State, 129 Idaho 881, 934 P.2d 947 (Ct. App. 1997) (district court should resolve counsel-appointment requests before ruling on merits)
- Newman v. State, 140 Idaho 491, 95 P.3d 642 (Ct. App. 2004) (frivolous petitions need not warrant appointed counsel)
- Melton v. State, 148 Idaho 339, 223 P.3d 281 (2009) (inferences for appointment decisions must favor petitioner)
- Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 152 P.3d 12 (Ct. App. 2007) ("possibility of a valid claim" standard for appointment is lower than summary-dismissal standard)
- Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 152 P.3d 629 (Ct. App. 2006) (distinguishes appointment-of-counsel threshold from merits)
- Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22, 218 P.3d 1 (Ct. App. 2009) (clarifies lower bar for appointment of counsel)
- Barcella v. State, 148 Idaho 469, 224 P.3d 536 (Ct. App. 2009) (ineffective-assistance claim cognizable in post-conviction proceedings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong deficient-performance and prejudice test)
- Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758, 760 P.2d 1174 (1988) (objective standard for attorney performance)
- Knutsen v. State, 144 Idaho 433, 163 P.3d 222 (Ct. App. 2007) (standards for assessing counsel performance)
- Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S. 487 (1962) (pleas induced by promises or threats void; distinguishes prosecutorial promises and procedural hearing requirements)
- Davidson v. State, 92 Idaho 104, 437 P.2d 620 (1968) (good-faith sentencing predictions by counsel do not render plea involuntary)
- Bjorklund v. State, 130 Idaho 373, 941 P.2d 345 (Ct. App. 1997) (rejects similar claim that counsel’s assurances about rider/probation voided plea)
- Nevarez v. State, 145 Idaho 878, 187 P.3d 1253 (Ct. App. 2008) (counsel advice beyond competence may vitiate voluntariness)
- Gonzales v. State, 151 Idaho 168, 254 P.3d 69 (Ct. App. 2011) (deference to tactical decisions unless based on inadequate preparation)
- Pratt v. State, 134 Idaho 581, 6 P.3d 831 (2000) (strategic decisions not second-guessed absent objective shortcomings)