possibility of a valid claim in Idaho

2026In Workman, and as reaffirmed in Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651 , 152 P.3d 12 (2007), the Idaho Supreme Court reiterated that the standard governing the appointment of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding depends on whether “the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim that would require further investigation on the defendant’s behalf.” Workman, 144 Idaho at 529 , 164 P.3d at 809 .

2026In Workman, and as reaffirmed in Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651 , 152 P.3d 12 (2007), the Idaho Supreme Court reiterated that the standard governing the appointment of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding depends on whether “the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim that would require further investigation on the defendant’s behalf.” Workman, 144 Idaho at 529 , 164 P.3d at 809 .

2024See Melton v. State, 148 Idaho 339, 343 , 223 P.3d 281, 285 (2009) (addressing whether petitioner raised the possibility of a valid claim as to “the grounds upon which [the petitioner] based his successive [petition] for post-conviction relief”).

2024See Melton v. State, 148 Idaho 339, 343 , 223 P.3d 281, 285 (2009) (addressing whether petitioner raised the possibility of a valid claim as to “the grounds upon which [the petitioner] based his successive [petition] for post-conviction relief”).

2015Murphy v. State, 156 Idaho 389, 393 , 327 P.3d 365, 369 (2014) (“The standard for determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding is whether the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim.”); Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 654 , 152 P.3d 12, 15 (2007) (“[T]he court should appoint counsel if the facts alleged raise the possibility of a valid claim.”); Charboneau, 140 Idaho at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 (setting forth the conditions under which a post-conviction court should appoint counsel).

2015Murphy v. State, 156 Idaho 389, 393 , 327 P.3d 365, 369 (2014) (“The standard for determining whether to appoint counsel for an indigent petitioner in a post-conviction proceeding is whether the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim.”); Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651, 654 , 152 P.3d 12, 15 (2007) (“[T]he court should appoint counsel if the facts alleged raise the possibility of a valid claim.”); Charboneau, 140 Idaho at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 (setting forth the conditions under which a post-conviction court should appoint counsel).

2026In Workman, and as reaffirmed in Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651 , 152 P.3d 12 (2007), the Idaho Supreme Court reiterated that the standard governing the appointment of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding depends on whether “the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim that would require further investigation on the defendant’s behalf.” Workman, 144 Idaho at 529 , 164 P.3d at 809 .

2026In Workman, and as reaffirmed in Swader v. State, 143 Idaho 651 , 152 P.3d 12 (2007), the Idaho Supreme Court reiterated that the standard governing the appointment of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding depends on whether “the petition alleges facts showing the possibility of a valid claim that would require further investigation on the defendant’s behalf.” Workman, 144 Idaho at 529 , 164 P.3d at 809 .

2012While the decision to grant or deny a request for court-appointed counsel is discretionary, Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004), counsel should be appointed if the petitioner qualifies financially and “alleges facts to raise the possibility of a valid claim.” Id. at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 ; Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 761 , 152 P.3d 629, 632 (Ct. App. 2006).

2012While the decision to grant or deny a request for court-appointed counsel is discretionary, Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1111 (2004), counsel should be appointed if the petitioner qualifies financially and “alleges facts to raise the possibility of a valid claim.” Id. at 793 , 102 P.3d at 1112 ; Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 761 , 152 P.3d 629, 632 (Ct. App. 2006).

2026Id. at 393 , 327 P.3d at 369 (“Although the petitioner is not entitled to have counsel appointed in order to search the record for possible nonfrivolous claims, counsel should be appointed if the facts alleged raise the possibility of a valid claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).

2026Id. at 393 , 327 P.3d at 369 (“Although the petitioner is not entitled to have counsel appointed in order to search the record for possible nonfrivolous claims, counsel should be appointed if the facts alleged raise the possibility of a valid claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)).

2020Cf. Grant, 156 Idaho at 607 , 329 P.3d at 389 (holding that the petitioner’s broad assertions of prejudice failed to raise the possibility of a valid claim arising from alleged judicial bias).

2020Cf. Grant, 156 Idaho at 607 , 329 P.3d at 389 (holding that the petitioner’s broad assertions of prejudice failed to raise the possibility of a valid claim arising from alleged judicial bias).

2009In contrast, in Swisher v. State, 129 Idaho 467 , 926 P.2d 1314 (Ct.App.1996), and Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22 , 218 P.3d 1 (Ct.App.2009), the Idaho Court of Appeals did not remand on the basis of failure to appoint counsel because the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners had not raised the possibility of a valid claim and thus their substantial rights were not affected.

2009In contrast, in Swisher v. State, 129 Idaho 467 , 926 P.2d 1314 (Ct.App.1996), and Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22 , 218 P.3d 1 (Ct.App.2009), the Idaho Court of Appeals did not remand on the basis of failure to appoint counsel because the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners had not raised the possibility of a valid claim and thus their substantial rights were not affected.

2026Therefore, in giving notice of intent to deny the Petition, “the court should provide sufficient information regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to supplement the request with the necessary additional facts, if they exist.” [Brown, 135 Idaho at 679 , 23 P.3d at 141 .] If he alleges facts to raise the possibility of a valid claim, the district court should appoint counsel in 12 order to give the petitioner an opportunity with counsel to properly allege the necessary supporting facts.

2026Therefore, in giving notice of intent to deny the Petition, “the court should provide sufficient information regarding the basis for its ruling to enable the petitioner to supplement the request with the necessary additional facts, if they exist.” [Brown, 135 Idaho at 679 , 23 P.3d at 141 .] If he alleges facts to raise the possibility of a valid claim, the district court should appoint counsel in 12 order to give the petitioner an opportunity with counsel to properly allege the necessary supporting facts.

2021Id.

2021Id.

2017Workman v. State, 144 Idaho 518, 529 , 164 P.3d 798, 809 (2007); Swader, 143 Idaho at 653-55 , 152 P.3d at 14-16 ; Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 760-63 , 152 P.3d 629, 631-34 (Ct. App. 2006); Newman, 140 Idaho at 493-94 , 95 P.3d at 644-45 .

2017Workman v. State, 144 Idaho 518, 529 , 164 P.3d 798, 809 (2007); Swader, 143 Idaho at 653-55 , 152 P.3d at 14-16 ; Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 760-63 , 152 P.3d 629, 631-34 (Ct. App. 2006); Newman, 140 Idaho at 493-94 , 95 P.3d at 644-45 .

2023Hall, 156 Idaho at 129, 1288 .

2021See Chaput v. State, 168 Idaho 774, 780 , 487 P.3d 366, 372 (Ct. App. 2021) (affirming the denial of appointed counsel to develop claims contradicted by the record); Hall v. State, 156 Idaho 125, 129 , 320 P.3d 1284, 1288 (2014) (affirming the denial of counsel when, even assuming the petitioner’s counsel was deficient, the deficiency could not have prejudiced the petitioner); Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 762 , 152 P.3d 629, 633 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming the denial of a motion for appointed counsel because the petitioner’s allegations were “too vague to suggest even the possibly of a merito

2021On appeal, Chaput combines his allegation of deficient performance in one claim with his assertion of prejudice from another claim in an effort to establish the possibility of a valid claim. 2 Specifically, Chaput argues that his counsel “made a promise about the sentence he would receive”--“a rider, or at worst, two years fixed”--and that he was prejudiced because he would not have pled guilty “if he had seen [the] discovery” which did not “show[] him taking the items from the store.” This Court’s decision in Campos v. State, 165 Idaho 90, 438 P.3d 787 (Ct. App. 2019), is instructive in deter

2021On appeal, Chaput combines his allegation of deficient performance in one claim with his assertion of prejudice from another claim in an effort to establish the possibility of a valid claim. 2 Specifically, Chaput argues that his counsel “made a promise about the sentence he would receive”--“a rider, or at worst, two years fixed”--and that he was prejudiced because he would not have pled guilty “if he had seen [the] discovery” which did not “show[] him taking the items from the store.” This Court’s decision in Campos v. State, 165 Idaho 90, 438 P.3d 787 (Ct. App. 2019), is instructive in deter

2019In determining that Betancourt’s petition is untimely we need not address these claims. 3 time-barred, should be considered timely, there can be no showing of “even the possibility of a valid claim that could be perfected with the aid of counsel.” Id. at 686 , 214 P.3d at 672 .

2019In determining that Betancourt’s petition is untimely we need not address these claims. 3 time-barred, should be considered timely, there can be no showing of “even the possibility of a valid claim that could be perfected with the aid of counsel.” Id. at 686 , 214 P.3d at 672 .

2009In contrast, in Swisher v. State, 129 Idaho 467 , 926 P.2d 1314 (Ct.App.1996), and Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22 , 218 P.3d 1 (Ct.App.2009), the Idaho Court of Appeals did not remand on the basis of failure to appoint counsel because the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners had not raised the possibility of a valid claim and thus their substantial rights were not affected.

2009In contrast, in Swisher v. State, 129 Idaho 467 , 926 P.2d 1314 (Ct.App.1996), and Judd v. State, 148 Idaho 22 , 218 P.3d 1 (Ct.App.2009), the Idaho Court of Appeals did not remand on the basis of failure to appoint counsel because the Court of Appeals found that the petitioners had not raised the possibility of a valid claim and thus their substantial rights were not affected.

2021See Chaput v. State, 168 Idaho 774, 780 , 487 P.3d 366, 372 (Ct. App. 2021) (affirming the denial of appointed counsel to develop claims contradicted by the record); Hall v. State, 156 Idaho 125, 129 , 320 P.3d 1284, 1288 (2014) (affirming the denial of counsel when, even assuming the petitioner’s counsel was deficient, the deficiency could not have prejudiced the petitioner); Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 762 , 152 P.3d 629, 633 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming the denial of a motion for appointed counsel because the petitioner’s allegations were “too vague to suggest even the possibly of a merito

2021See Chaput v. State, 168 Idaho 774, 780 , 487 P.3d 366, 372 (Ct. App. 2021) (affirming the denial of appointed counsel to develop claims contradicted by the record); Hall v. State, 156 Idaho 125, 129 , 320 P.3d 1284, 1288 (2014) (affirming the denial of counsel when, even assuming the petitioner’s counsel was deficient, the deficiency could not have prejudiced the petitioner); Plant v. State, 143 Idaho 758, 762 , 152 P.3d 629, 633 (Ct. App. 2006) (affirming the denial of a motion for appointed counsel because the petitioner’s allegations were “too vague to suggest even the possibly of a merito

2020See Kriebel, 148 Idaho at 190 , 219 P.3d at 1206 (holding failure to file timely petition is a basis for dismissal of petition).

2020See Kriebel, 148 Idaho at 190 , 219 P.3d at 1206 (holding failure to file timely petition is a basis for dismissal of petition).

2020Powell v. Sellers, 130 Idaho 122, 128 , 937 P.2d 434, 440 (Ct. App. 1997).

2020Powell v. Sellers, 130 Idaho 122, 128 , 937 P.2d 434, 440 (Ct. App. 1997).

2020A. Hill Did Not Preserve a Challenge to the Sufficiency of the Notice Because He Did Not Raise the Issue Below “A trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief, either upon motion of a party or on the court’s own initiative, if the petitioner’s evidence has raised no genuine issue of material fact which, if resolved in the petitioner’s favor, would entitle him to the requested relief.” I.C. § 19-4906; Griffin v. State, 142 Idaho 438, 440 , 128 P.3d 975, 977 (Ct. App. 2006).

2020A. Hill Did Not Preserve a Challenge to the Sufficiency of the Notice Because He Did Not Raise the Issue Below “A trial court may summarily dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief, either upon motion of a party or on the court’s own initiative, if the petitioner’s evidence has raised no genuine issue of material fact which, if resolved in the petitioner’s favor, would entitle him to the requested relief.” I.C. § 19-4906; Griffin v. State, 142 Idaho 438, 440 , 128 P.3d 975, 977 (Ct. App. 2006).

2019“Although the appointment of counsel is discretionary, counsel ‘should’ be appointed when there is the possibility of a valid claim; failure to do so is an abuse of discretion.” Andrus v. State, 164 Idaho 565, 569 , 433 P.3d 665, 669 (Ct. App. 2019).

2019“Although the appointment of counsel is discretionary, counsel ‘should’ be appointed when there is the possibility of a valid claim; failure to do so is an abuse of discretion.” Andrus v. State, 164 Idaho 565, 569 , 433 P.3d 665, 669 (Ct. App. 2019).

2014See Buss v. State, 147 Idaho 514, 517 , 211 P.3d 123, 126 (Ct. App. 2009) (even if trial counsel fails to advise defendant of the consequences of a plea, where the record demonstrates the defendant was advised of the consequences before pleading guilty, a finding of prejudice under the second prong of Strickland is precluded).

2014See Buss v. State, 147 Idaho 514, 517 , 211 P.3d 123, 126 (Ct. App. 2009) (even if trial counsel fails to advise defendant of the consequences of a plea, where the record demonstrates the defendant was advised of the consequences before pleading guilty, a finding of prejudice under the second prong of Strickland is precluded).

2014See Abbott v. State, 129 Idaho 381, 385 , 924 P.2d 1225, 1229 (Ct.App.1996) (holding that if an order of the trial court is incorrect on a particular theory, but is supported by an alternative legal theory, the appellate court may uphold the trial court’s decision).

2014See Abbott v. State, 129 Idaho 381, 385 , 924 P.2d 1225, 1229 (Ct.App.1996) (holding that if an order of the trial court is incorrect on a particular theory, but is supported by an alternative legal theory, the appellate court may uphold the trial court’s decision).

2014The Idaho Supreme Court recently addressed an Estrada claim arising in a similar context in Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159, 168 , 321 P.3d 709, 718 (2014).

2014The Idaho Supreme Court recently addressed an Estrada claim arising in a similar context in Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159, 168 , 321 P.3d 709, 718 (2014).

2012Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792-93 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1111-12 (2004); Hust, 147 Idaho at 684 , 214 P.3d at 670 . “[A]ny time a district court dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief on either substantive or procedural grounds without first addressing the petitioner’s request for post-conviction counsel (assuming the petitioner made such a request), the court commits an abuse of discretion.” Hust, 147 Idaho at 685 , 214 P.3d at 671 (emphasis in original); accord Fox, 129 Idaho at 885 , 934 P.2d at 951 ; Swisher v. State, 129 Idaho 467, 469 , 926 P.2d 1314, 1316 (Ct. App. 1996).

2012Charboneau v. State, 140 Idaho 789, 792-93 , 102 P.3d 1108, 1111-12 (2004); Hust, 147 Idaho at 684 , 214 P.3d at 670 . “[A]ny time a district court dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief on either substantive or procedural grounds without first addressing the petitioner’s request for post-conviction counsel (assuming the petitioner made such a request), the court commits an abuse of discretion.” Hust, 147 Idaho at 685 , 214 P.3d at 671 (emphasis in original); accord Fox, 129 Idaho at 885 , 934 P.2d at 951 ; Swisher v. State, 129 Idaho 467, 469 , 926 P.2d 1314, 1316 (Ct. App. 1996).