State V. White, 47404

White pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance but, due to an oversight, did not plead guilty to being a persistent violator. Without the enhancement plea, the original sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for the underlying offense.
White moved under I.C.R. 35 claiming an illegal sentence; the district court granted the Rule 35 motion and entered a corrected sentence within the statutory maximum (7 years, 3 years determinate).
White also filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR) asserting three claims: (1) trial counsel’s failure to recognize the missing persistent-violator plea; (2) counsel’s failure to object at sentencing to the illegal sentence; and (3) counsel’s misstatements about veteran’s court eligibility and failure to object to the State’s alleged mischaracterization of White’s military discharge.
The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss the PCR as moot because the Rule 35 judgment corrected the sentence, but the notice only addressed the claims premised on the illegal sentence.
The court summarily dismissed the entire PCR after White did not respond; on appeal, the Idaho Court of Appeals held the dismissal was improper as to the third claim because the notice did not address it or give White the statutorily required opportunity to respond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly summarily dismissed White’s entire PCR when its notice addressed only claims of an illegal sentence	White: dismissal of the whole petition was improper because the court’s notice did not address his veteran’s-court/misrepresentation claim, so he was denied the required opportunity to respond	State: corrected sentence rendered White’s PCR moot and justified dismissal of the petition	Court: reversed the summary dismissal as to the third claim because the notice failed to address it; judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded
Whether the corrected Rule 35 sentence moots PCR claims	White: some claims (those not tied to an illegal sentence) remain live; they are not rendered moot by correction of the sentence	State: corrected sentence granted the relief sought, making the petition moot	Court: corrected sentence mooted claims tied solely to illegality of sentence but did not moot the separate veteran’s-court/misrepresentation claim

Crabtree v. State, 144 Idaho 489 (requires notice and opportunity to respond before summary dismissal under the PCR statute)
Newman v. State, 140 Idaho 491 (notice must give sufficient detail to allow petitioner to supplement the record)
Hayes v. State, 143 Idaho 88 (applies mailbox rule to timeliness of incarcerated litigants’ filings)