Randy L. McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286

Background

Randy L. McKinney was convicted by a jury in 1981 of first-degree murder (both premeditated and felony murder), robbery, and related conspiracies; he was originally sentenced to death and other sentences; convictions and prior post-conviction denials were repeatedly affirmed on appeal.
In 2009, following federal habeas proceedings finding ineffective assistance at the capital sentencing hearing, the parties entered a binding Rule 11 sentencing agreement that resentenced McKinney to a fixed life term without parole for first-degree murder, concurrent with other sentences; McKinney waived appeal rights in that agreement.
McKinney filed a state post-conviction petition in 2013 raising multiple claims challenging aspects of his resentencing and counsel’s performance (Claims 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 among others).
The State moved to dismiss under Idaho Code § 19-4906(c), asserting the petition was successive, time-barred, waived by the Rule 11 agreement, and unsupported by evidentiary basis; the district court granted judicial notice of court files, held a hearing, and dismissed the petition with prejudice; McKinney appealed.
On appeal, the Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the district court erred in dismissing each asserted claim (focusing on whether dismissal rested on grounds not raised by the State without required 20-day notice, and whether McKinney had alleged facts to overcome summary dismissal).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claim 2: Whether resentencing was for "premeditated" murder vs. "first-degree (felony)" murder and whether continued reference to "premeditated" violates due process	McKinney: resentencing was for premeditated murder; continuing to call it premeditated violates due process	State: no evidentiary basis; resentencing transcript and agreement show first-degree murder; claim frivolous	Court: Dismissed — record shows resentencing for first-degree murder and no facts support McKinney’s assertion; dismissal proper despite district court citing additional ground not raised by State
Claim 3: Whether imposition of a "fixed life" sentence was illegal because such a sentence was unavailable when offenses occurred	McKinney: fixed-life sentence was not a lawful option at time of offense; court lacked authority	State: no evidentiary basis; fixed life valid under existing law	Court: Dismissed — settled Idaho precedent (State v. Wilson) permits fixed-life for first-degree murder at that time; no factual issue to cure via 20-day notice
Claim 4: Ineffective assistance for counsel allegedly informing McKinney he would be resentenced to felony (not premeditated) murder	McKinney: counsel misinformed him about the charge used at resentencing	State: no evidentiary basis; transcript contradicts allegation	Court: Dismissed — record (colloquy) contradicts claim; McKinney did not identify facts showing deficient performance or prejudice
Claim 6: Ineffective assistance for counsel failing to recognize that only death or life (not fixed life) was available at time of offenses	McKinney: counsel ineffective for allowing a sentence court lacked authority to impose	State: no evidentiary basis; law permits fixed-life	Court: Dismissed — claim contrary to law (Wilson); petitioner did not allege Strickland prejudice or factual support
Claim 7: Counsel failed to consult about appeal (ineffective assistance) despite waiver of appeal in Rule 11 agreement	McKinney: counsel failed to consult regarding appeal rights	State: no evidentiary basis; McKinney expressly waived appeal in the agreement and on the record	Court: Dismissed — waiver was knowing, voluntary; Flores-Ortega framework requires facts showing counsel should have consulted and that petitioner would have appealed; McKinney alleged none

Key Cases Cited

Ferrier v. State, 135 Idaho 797, 25 P.3d 110 (2001) (post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature and governed by civil rules)
Charboneau v. State, 144 Idaho 900, 174 P.3d 870 (2007) (petition must verify facts within applicant’s personal knowledge and attach supporting evidence)
DeRushé v. State, 146 Idaho 599, 200 P.3d 1148 (2009) (court cannot dismiss on a ground not asserted by State unless 20-day notice is given)
Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517, 236 P.3d 1277 (2010) (preservation of particularity objections to summary dismissal requires raising issue below)
Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671, 227 P.3d 925 (2010) (affirming dismissal where petitioner failed to provide admissible evidence supporting claims)
State v. Wilson, 107 Idaho 506, 690 P.2d 1338 (1984) (fixed-life sentence is a permissible sentence for first-degree murder under then-existing law)
State v. Murphy, 125 Idaho 456, 872 P.2d 719 (1994) (validity of appeal-waiver in plea agreement reviewed; knowingly made waivers are enforced)
Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (counsel’s duty to consult about appeal arises when a rational defendant would want to appeal or defendant indicates interest; prejudice requires showing would have timely appealed)