Takhsilov v. State, 161 Idaho 669

Defendant Alik Takhsilov was previously found incompetent and hospitalized under Idaho Code § 18-212, later found restored to competency and returned to district court.
Takhsilov then pled guilty to robbery (I.C. § 18-6501) and burglary (I.C. § 18-1404).
He filed a post-conviction petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting a competency evaluation under I.C. § 18-211 before the guilty pleas, asserting he again experienced symptoms (e.g., hearing voices) that rendered him incompetent.
The State moved for summary dismissal, arguing Takhsilov offered only bare assertions and lacked admissible evidence (notably an expert opinion) showing incompetence at plea time.
The district court gave notice, allowed 20 days to respond, received no substantive reply, and dismissed the petition; the Court of Appeals vacated that dismissal and this Court granted review.
The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed whether the State’s motion provided adequate notice and whether Takhsilov raised a genuine factual dispute about competency; it affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of notice for summary dismissal	Takhsilov: State mischaracterized Ridgley and motion failed to give adequate notice of dismissal grounds	State: Motion, read as a whole, correctly explained summary-dismissal standards and noted petitioner’s allegations were bare and unsupported	Court: Motion provided adequate notice; district court gave written notice and time to respond; no prejudice shown
Whether petitioner raised a genuine factual dispute as to competency at plea	Takhsilov: Prior incompetency, severe condition on release, and his reports of hearing voices before plea create a factual dispute and counsel was ineffective for not seeking evaluation	State: Evidence was limited to inadmissible hearsay and conclusory self‑statements; absent an expert opinion or admissible evidence, no genuine dispute exists	Court: Takhsilov’s verified petition statement was hearsay; affidavit contained conclusory assertions. Without admissible evidence (e.g., expert opinion), no reasonable probability of incompetence shown; summary dismissal proper

Ridgley v. State, 148 Idaho 671, 227 P.3d 925 (court requires admissible evidence to show reasonable probability of incompetence at plea)
Payne v. State, 146 Idaho 548, 199 P.3d 123 (post-conviction application must be supported by admissible evidence; conclusory allegations insufficient)
Rhoades v. State, 148 Idaho 247, 220 P.3d 1066 (application must specifically set forth grounds and courts review pleadings plus affidavits to determine genuine issues)
Dunlap v. State, 159 Idaho 280, 360 P.3d 289 (applications lacking admissible supporting evidence are subject to dismissal)
State v. Powers, 96 Idaho 833, 537 P.2d 1369 (competency standard: ability to understand proceedings and assist in defense)