Richard Myers Caldwell v. State
159 Idaho 233
| Idaho Ct. App. | 2015Background
- In 2010 Caldwell was convicted of multiple sexual offenses against a minor and sentenced to concurrent unified 20‑year terms with three‑year minimums; he did not appeal.
- Caldwell filed a verified petition for post‑conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (including failure to interview/call a psychiatrist and failure to consult about or file an appeal), prosecutorial misconduct, and Eighth Amendment conditions‑of‑confinement claims.
- The state moved for summary dismissal; the district court dismissed several claims, including Caldwell’s claim that counsel failed to call a psychiatrist, reasoning the proffered opinion would have been inadmissible.
- The court held an evidentiary hearing on remaining claims; Caldwell did not present evidence or argue the failure‑to‑appeal or Eighth Amendment claims at that hearing and the court’s final findings did not expressly address those claims.
- Caldwell appealed the partial summary dismissal and argued the court erred by not addressing the unadjudicated claims; he also argued the psychiatrist testimony would have been admissible and counsel ineffective for not calling the expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court erred by summarily dismissing ineffective‑assistance claim for failing to interview/call psychiatrist | Caldwell: psychiatrist would have testified he lacked pedophilic/criminal sexual tendencies; such opinion could be admissible under current law and counsel’s failure was prejudicial | State: testimony was inadmissible character evidence; alternatively, Caldwell failed to support claim with affidavit/evidence of proffered testimony | Affirmed. Court recognized later case law (Rothwell) may allow such character evidence but concluded counsel’s failure was not objectively deficient because law then made admissibility at least arguable and Caldwell failed to show inadequate preparation or ignorance of law |
| Whether district court’s failure to address in findings counsel’s alleged failure to consult about or file an appeal requires remand | Caldwell: district court did not decide that claim and must do so on remand | State: Caldwell failed to present or preserve evidence on that claim at the evidentiary hearing; claim waived | Affirmed. Claim waived — petitioner failed to raise or present evidence at hearing or pursue post‑judgment remedies so not preserved for appeal |
| Whether Eighth Amendment conditions‑of‑confinement claim was properly raised in post‑conviction petition | Caldwell: claim was included in his post‑conviction petition and should have been addressed | State: UPCPA is not the proper vehicle; habeas corpus is proper for Eighth Amendment conditions claims | Held for State. Eighth Amendment conditions claims must be raised via habeas corpus, not post‑conviction petition; district court’s failure to address was immaterial because dismissal was proper |
| Whether appellate court may affirm on alternative theory not relied on below (insufficient affidavit/evidence of proffered testimony) | Caldwell: he had no notice below that dismissal might rest on lack of affidavit/evidence so cannot be affirmed on new ground | State: alternative ground supports affirmance | Held for Caldwell on notice principle but ultimately affirmed on other bases: appellate court declined to affirm on an unnoticed alternative ground (I.C. §19‑4906(b) notice), and resolved admissibility/deficiency issues on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rothwell, 154 Idaho 125 (Ct. App.) (morality regarding minors can be a pertinent character trait in sexual‑misconduct cases; opinion evidence may be admissible)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Ineffective assistance standard: deficiency and prejudice)
- Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671 (Ct. App.) (requirements for notice and supporting admissible evidence in post‑conviction summary dismissal context)
- Eubank v. State, 130 Idaho 861 (Ct. App.) (post‑conviction relief does not supplant habeas for conditions‑of‑confinement Eighth Amendment claims)
- Loveland v. State, 141 Idaho 933 (Ct. App.) (failure to present evidence at evidentiary hearing waives claim of counsel’s failure to file appeal)