353 P.3d 1086
Idaho Ct. App.2015Background
- Robert Terry Johnson pled guilty in 1994 to two counts of first-degree murder and did not pursue a direct appeal.
- He filed an initial post-conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel; that petition was summarily dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
- Over a decade later Johnson filed a first successive post-conviction petition raising Brady/new-evidence (co-defendant confession) and ineffective-assistance claims; the district court dismissed it as untimely and this Court affirmed on timeliness grounds.
- Within a month of remittitur, Johnson filed a second successive petition repeating the same claims and adding arguments that post-conviction/appellate counsel were ineffective and that the district court ignored his pro se motions.
- The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss, denied appointment of counsel, then—after counsel was appointed—summarily dismissed the second successive petition as barred by res judicata and related doctrines; Johnson appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Johnson showed "sufficient reason" to file a successive petition under I.C. § 19-4908 | Johnson: affirmative misrepresentations and ineffective assistance by counsel in the first successive proceeding (and efforts to remedy them) provide sufficient reason; Murphy is distinguishable | State: claims were previously adjudicated and time-bar issues were resolved against Johnson; no sufficient reason to relitigate | Held: Claim preclusion bars relitigation; I.C. § 19-4908 exception does not allow reasserting claims already adjudicated |
| Whether res judicata (claim preclusion) applies to the second successive petition | Johnson: new supporting reasons and theories justify reopening the claims | State: same parties, same claims, and a final judgment exist—so claim preclusion applies | Held: Res judicata applies because (1) same parties, (2) same claims, (3) prior final judgment on the merits |
| Whether law-of-the-case doctrine barred the petition | Johnson: argued procedural errors and omitted motions were not properly considered | State: the separate second-action posture makes res judicata the applicable doctrine | Held: Law-of-the-case inapplicable to a separate action; res judicata is the controlling doctrine |
| Whether there remained a genuine issue of material fact on timeliness/sufficient-reason | Johnson: factual allegations and affidavits create an issue for trial | State: prior summary dismissal adjudicated the timeliness issue; no genuine issue remains | Held: No genuine issue of material fact; summary dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. State, 156 Idaho 389 (2014) (post-conviction counsel ineffectiveness cannot by itself establish "sufficient reason" for a successive petition)
- Charboneau v. State, 144 Idaho 900 (2007) (court must consider timeliness when evaluating "sufficient reason")
- Parrott v. State, 117 Idaho 272 (1990) (ineffective-assistance claims must be raised on direct appeal or in post-conviction, but not both; raising on appeal makes issue res judicata)
- Aldape v. Akins, 105 Idaho 254 (1983) (policy purposes of claim preclusion: finality, prevent repetitious litigation, repose)
- Knutsen v. State, 144 Idaho 433 (2007) (res judicata applied in post-conviction context)
- Makin v. Liddle, 108 Idaho 67 (Ct. App. 1985) (summary judgment dismissal can have preclusive effect)