Omar Escobedo v. State
Background
- In 2009 Omar Escobedo was convicted of lewd conduct and sexual abuse of a child and received lengthy unified sentences.
- Escobedo’s direct appeal was affirmed; he then filed a timely post-conviction petition raising sentencing and ineffective-assistance claims, most of which were summarily dismissed for lack of admissible supporting evidence.
- While his initial post-conviction appeal was pending, Escobedo filed a pro se successive post-conviction petition repeating ineffective-assistance claims and asserting new evidence (bank/credit-card records); appointed counsel did not file an amended petition.
- The State moved to summarily dismiss the successive petition; the district court dismissed it on three alternative bases: (1) res judicata because claims had been raised previously; (2) failure to show sufficient reason under I.C. § 19-4908 for raising new claims in a successive petition; and (3) Murphy v. State — ineffective assistance of prior post-conviction counsel is not a sufficient reason to justify a successive petition.
- Escobedo appealed, arguing newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance by successive post-conviction counsel, and constructive denial of counsel due to restrictions on prison law libraries; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether newly discovered bank/credit-card records created a genuine issue overcoming res judicata | Escobedo: records would prove trial/appellate/post-conviction counsel were ineffective and justify consideration of claims on the merits | State: Escobedo previously raised the same failure-to-introduce-records claim; res judicata and Murphy bars apply; Escobedo did not challenge all bases on appeal | Court: Claim barred by res judicata; alternative grounds (failure to show sufficient reason and Murphy) were not challenged and support affirmance |
| Whether successive post-conviction counsel’s alleged abandonment amounts to ineffective assistance justifying relief | Escobedo: appointed successive counsel abandoned him (failed to amend petition, investigate), citing Maples to excuse default and obtain relief | State: Claim not raised below; ineffective assistance of prior post-conviction counsel is not a recognized ground to justify a successive petition under Idaho law | Court: Raised first on appeal and not preserved; Maples inapplicable; under Murphy such allegations do not provide a sufficient reason for a successive petition; claim fails |
| Whether Escobedo was constructively denied counsel (prison law library restrictions) | Escobedo: removal of law libraries and need to raise IAC claims in post-conviction proceedings resulted in constructive denial | State: Issue not raised below; procedural default | Court: Issue not raised in district court, so will not be considered for the first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. State, 156 Idaho 389 (Idaho 2014) (ineffective assistance of prior post-conviction counsel does not constitute a sufficient reason to file a successive petition)
- Maples v. Thomas, 566 U.S. 266 (U.S. 2012) (court-appointed counsel abandonment can, in limited circumstances, excuse procedural default in federal habeas)
- Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247 (Idaho 2009) (standards and civil nature of post-conviction proceedings)