Zavala v. State, 48339

Zavala was charged with multiple offenses including aggravated assault on an officer (firearm enhancement), unlawful possession of a firearm (persistent violator), and resisting/obstructing; he waived appointed counsel and represented himself at trial and was convicted and sentenced.
On direct appeal Zavala argued prosecutorial misconduct during closing; this Court affirmed the convictions.
Zavala filed a post‑conviction petition raising, among other claims, ineffective assistance of appellate counsel for failing to argue on appeal that the trial court should have sua sponte ordered a competency evaluation before allowing self‑representation.
The district court, after briefing and a hearing, found the trial record did not raise a bona fide doubt about Zavala’s competency to represent himself (noting coherent participation, rational arguments, and a pretrial assurance he was not symptomatic) and granted summary dismissal of the appellate‑counsel claim.
Zavala appealed the summary dismissal, arguing appellate counsel was objectively unreasonable in omitting the competency claim and that he was prejudiced because he would likely have prevailed on appeal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Zavala failed to allege a genuine issue of material fact on either deficient performance or prejudice under Strickland.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to raise that the trial court erred in not sua sponte ordering a competency evaluation before allowing Zavala to self‑represent	Zavala: appellate counsel was deficient for omitting a stronger competency claim and prejudiced because there was a reasonable probability the competency issue would have prevailed on appeal	State: record did not raise a bona fide doubt about competency; counsel not objectively unreasonable to omit the claim; Zavala cannot show prejudice	Court affirmed summary dismissal: Zavala did not show a genuine issue of material fact that counsel was deficient or that omission prejudiced him; omitted claim not shown to be independently meritorious

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two‑prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
Dunlap v. State, 159 Idaho 280, 360 P.3d 289 (2015) (omission of an appellate claim may be deficient only when omission was objectively unreasonable; comparison of omitted claim to raised claims relevant; prejudice requires omitted claim be independently meritorious)
State v. Hawkins, 148 Idaho 774, 229 P.3d 379 (Ct. App. 2009) (trial court must sua sponte consider competency to stand trial when the record raises a bona fide doubt)
State v. Hawkins, 159 Idaho 507, 363 P.3d 348 (2015) (Idaho Supreme Court) (Edwards does not create a constitutional right to have self‑representation denied; appellate standard is fundamental‑error review)
Mintun v. State, 144 Idaho 656, 168 P.3d 40 (Ct. App. 2007) (right to effective assistance extends to first appeal; appellate counsel may winnow issues)
Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000) (appellate counsel not required to raise every nonfrivolous issue)
Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008) (states may insist on representation for certain defendants lacking the mental capacity to conduct trial proceedings by themselves)
Aragon v. State, 114 Idaho 758, 760 P.2d 1174 (1988) (counsel’s performance judged against objective standard of reasonableness)