Woodrow Grant v. State
156 Idaho 598
Idaho Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2006 Grant pled guilty to aggravated battery; after retained jurisdiction he was placed on probation. In 2009 he pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and domestic battery, admitted probation violation, and the court executed his suspended 2006 sentence; sentences were mostly consecutive. Grant’s direct appeal was affirmed.
- In February 2011 Grant filed a post-conviction petition alleging multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel and requested appointed counsel; the State did not answer.
- The district court issued a notice of intent to dismiss under I.C. § 19-4906, denied appointed counsel, denied Grant’s motion to amend, and summarily dismissed the petition; Grant’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- On appeal Grant argued (1) a due process right to counsel in initial post-conviction proceedings (relying on Martinez), and (2) that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel because his verified allegations raised the possibility of valid ineffective-assistance claims (psych-evaluation advice, PSI review, mitigation evidence, venue/disqualification, plea advice, competency).
- The Court of Appeals held there is no federal or Idaho constitutional right to counsel in initial post-conviction proceedings, appointment is discretionary under Idaho law, and the district court did not err in denying counsel or summarily dismissing Grant’s petition because he failed to show the possibility of a valid claim.
Issues
| Issue | Grant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process (Fourteenth Amendment or Idaho Constitution) requires counsel in initial post-conviction proceedings | Martinez permits relief; thus Grant argues a right to counsel at initial post-conviction stage | Martinez is limited; Supreme Court has not recognized a constitutional right to counsel beyond first appeal; Idaho law contains no such right | No constitutional right recognized; appointment remains discretionary under Idaho law |
| Whether the district court abused discretion by refusing to appoint counsel under I.C. § 19-4904 | Verified petition alleged facts raising possibility of valid ineffective-assistance claims; counsel needed to develop claims | Grant failed to allege facts showing possibility of valid claims; some allegations were conclusory or contradicted by plea forms | No abuse of discretion; court properly refused appointment because Grant failed to show possibility of valid claims |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to advise re: right to remain silent during court-ordered psychological evaluation (Estrada claim) | Counsel failed to advise Grant his Fifth Amendment right survived the ordered evaluation and evaluation was used at sentencing | Grant’s guilty plea advisory forms show he understood right to refuse to provide self-incriminating information; no prejudice shown | Claim fails; plea forms disprove prejudice and undermine entitlement to appointed counsel |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to review/correct PSI and failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing | Counsel did not review PSI with Grant or correct inaccuracies; counsel failed to present available mitigating evidence | Presentence interview is not a critical stage; alleged failures are conclusory and could be tactical; Grant did not identify specific PSI errors or mitigating material | Majority: claims fail for lack of factual showing; no appointment required and summary dismissal proper. Concurring in part: two claims (PSI correction and mitigating evidence) raised possibility of valid claims and should have warranted appointment and further development |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012) (excusing procedural default of ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claims when initial-review collateral counsel was absent or ineffective)
- Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) (right to appointed counsel extends to first appeal of right and no further)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558 (2006) (defendant retains Fifth Amendment right at court-ordered psycho-sexual evaluations; counsel must advise on participation)
- Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789 (2004) (standards for district court's discretionary appointment of counsel in post-conviction proceedings)
- Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159 (2014) (where record shows defendant understood Estrada rights and voluntarily waived them, no prejudice shown)