Patrick O'Neil v. State
Background
- O’Neil pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property, with a unified seven-year term and three years determinate.
- The district court imposed the sentence and O’Neil filed a Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
- O’Neil appealed his sentence and the Rule 35 denial; this Court affirmed in an unpublished decision.
- During that appeal, O’Neil filed a pro se post-conviction relief petition and sought counsel.
- The district court denied appointment of counsel and summarily dismissed the petition, and O’Neil appeals.
- The issues concern appointment of counsel and the legality of the district court’s summary dismissal based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appointment of counsel standard | O’Neil claims potential valid claim; seeks counsel. | Court properly denied counsel as claims frivolous based on petition record. | affirmed; appointment of counsel appropriate only if a valid claim potential exists. |
| Summary dismissal of post-conviction petition | Evidence in petition supported ineffective-assistance claims. | Evidence was bare, conclusory, with no admissible support. | affirmed; petition properly summarily dismissed for lack of admissible evidence supporting claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (2004) (standard for appointment of counsel with pro se petitions; Brown admonitions)
- Payne v. State, 146 Idaho 548 (2008) (rules for post-conviction pleading and evidentiary requirements)
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (2004) (reiterated procedures for pro se petitions for counsel)
- Brown v. State, 135 Idaho 676 (2001) (general problems with pro se pleadings)
- Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644 (1994) (evidentiary standards in post-conviction review)
- Yakovac v. State, 145 Idaho 437 (2008) (summary dismissal standards; burden of proof)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Lint v. State, 145 Idaho 472 (2008) (deficient performance in failure-to-file motion analysis)
- Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269 (2002) (requirements for post-conviction evidentiary showing)
- Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865 (1990) (preponderance standard in post-conviction relief)