Stuart v. State

Douglas E. Stuart appeals from the district court’s order summarily dismissing his application for post-conviction relief. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

Stuart pled guilty to felony eluding a peace officer. I.C. § 49-1404(2)(a). The district court sentenced Stuart to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Stuart filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief. Stuart’s application alleged he was entitled to relief because, among other reasons, he was provided with ineffective assistance of counsel when his counsel failed to consult with him regarding the presentence investigation. According to Stuart’s application, “issues for downward departure” were not considered by the district court, presumably due to his counsel’s failure to consult with him regarding the presentence investigation. As relief, Stuart requested a new sentencing hearing where he could challenge the presentence investigation report (PSI). In an affidavit attached to his application, Stuart averred that his counsel did not help him fill out the PSI questionnaire or subsequently consult with him regarding errors in the PSI. The state filed a motion for summary dismissal. The state asserted that Stuart’s claim regarding the PSI failed because Stuart had not indicated how counsel could have assisted him in filling out the PSI questionnaire, what errors existed in the PSI, or how counsel’s assistance would have altered his sentence. The district court appointed Stuart post-conviction counsel. Stuart did not respond to the state’s motion for summary dismissal, and the district court summarily dismissed Stuart’s application. The district court’s order indicated that Stuart’s claim of ineffective assistance regarding the PSI failed to state a genuine issue of material fact for essentially the same reasons asserted in the state’s motion for summary dismissal.

Stuart appealed. His appellate brief asserted that the district court failed to provide him with adequate notice prior to summarily dismissing his claim. The state moved to have the case remanded to the district court to provide Stuart with notice on a claim not addressed in the state’s motion for summary dismissal. Stuart stipulated to the motion and the case was remanded. The district court filed a notice of intent to dismiss Stuart’s application, which contained identical reasons for dismissal as the district court’s original order dismissing his application. Twenty-one days later, the district court summarily dismissed Stuart’s application. Stuart again appeals, having filed a revised appellate brief.

*469ii.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

An application for post-conviction relief initiates a proceeding that is civil in nature. State v. Bearshield, 104 Idaho 676, 678, 662 P.2d 548, 550 (1983); Clark v. State, 92 Idaho 827, 830, 452 P.2d 54, 57 (1969); Murray v. State, 121 Idaho 918, 921, 828 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Ct.App.1992). Like a plaintiff in a civil action, the applicant must prove by a preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the request for post-conviction relief is based. I.C. § 19-4907; Russell v. State, 118 Idaho 65, 67, 794 P.2d 654, 656 (Ct.App.1990). An application for post-conviction relief differs from a complaint in an ordinary civil action. An application must contain much more than “a short and plain statement of the claim” that would suffice for a complaint under I.R.C.P. 8(a)(1). Rather, an application for post-conviction relief must be verified with respect to facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant, and affidavits, records or other evidence supporting its allegations must be attached, or the application must state why such supporting evidence is not included with the application. I.C. § 19-4903. In other words, the application must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting its allegations, or the application will be subject to dismissal.

Idaho Code Section 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief, either pursuant to motion of a party or upon the court’s own initiative. Summary dismissal of an application pursuant to I.C. § 19-4906 is the procedural equivalent of summary judgment under I.R.C.P. 56. Summary dismissal is permissible only when the applicant’s evidence has raised no genuine issue of material fact that, if resolved in the applicant’s favor, would entitle the applicant to the requested relief. If such a factual issue is presented, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted. Gonzales v. State, 120 Idaho 759, 763, 819 P.2d 1159, 1163 (Ct.App.1991); Hoover v. State, 114 Idaho 145, 146, 754 P.2d 458, 459 (Ct.App.1988); Ramirez v. State, 113 Idaho 87, 89, 741 P.2d 374, 376 (Ct.App.1987). Summary dismissal of an application for post-conviction relief may be appropriate, however, even where the state does not controvert the applicant’s evidence because the court is not required to accept either the applicant’s mere conclusory allegations, unsupported by admissible evidence, or the applicant’s conclusions of law. Roman v. State, 125 Idaho 644, 647, 873 P.2d 898, 901 (Ct.App.1994); Baruth v. Gardner, 110 Idaho 156, 159, 715 P.2d 369, 372 (Ct.App.1986).

On review of a dismissal of a post-conviction relief application without an evidentiary hearing, we determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists based on the pleadings, depositions, and admissions together with any affidavits on file; moreover, the court liberally construes the facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Ricca v. State, 124 Idaho 894, 896, 865 P.2d 985, 987 (Ct.App.1993).

III.

ANALYSIS

In Stuart’s revised appellate brief, he addresses only the dismissal of his ineffective assistance claim regarding the presentence investigation. Stuart asserts that the district court erred in not determining that preparation of a PSI is a critical stage of the proceedings during which Stuart was entitled to effective assistance of counsel. Stuart next asserts that the district court erred in ruling that Stuart had not shown counsel’s performance was deficient and that he was prejudiced by counsel’s shortcomings. Stuart asserts we should remand to the district court for factual findings as to which portions of the PSI influenced the district court in sentencing and for a determination of whether Stuart was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to assist him in completing the PSI questionnaire.1

*470We must first address whether Stuart’s presentence investigation was a critical stage of the proceedings against Stuart during which he had a right to counsel. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant the right to counsel during all critical stages of the adversarial proceedings against him or her. Estrada v. State, 143 Idaho 558, 562, 149 P.3d 833, 837 (2006). See also United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 224, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1930, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149, 1155 (1967). A defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel extends to all critical stages of the prosecution where his substantial rights may be affected, and sentencing is one such stage. Estrada, 143 Idaho at 562, 149 P.3d at 837; Retamoza v. State, 125 Idaho 792, 796, 874 P.2d 603, 607 (Ct.App.1994). In determining whether a particular stage is critical, it is necessary to analyze whether potential substantial prejudice to defendant’s rights inheres in the particular confrontation and the ability of counsel to help avoid that prejudice. Estrada, 143 Idaho at 562, 149 P.3d at 837. If the stage is not critical, there can be no constitutional violation, no matter how deficient counsel’s performance. Id.

In Estrada, the Idaho Supreme Court held that “a defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to counsel regarding the decision of whether to submit to a psychosexual exam.” Id. at 562-63, 149 P.3d at 837-38. In so holding, the Court distinguished a psychosexual exam from a routine presentence investigation. The Court stated:

A psychosexual exam concerned with the future dangerousness of a defendant is distinguishable from a “routine” presentence investigation. Specifically, Idaho Rule of Criminal Procedure 32 does not require a defendant’s participation in a presentence investigation report, whereas I.C. § 18-8316 states, “If ordered by the court, an offender ... shall submit to [a psychosexual] evaluation____” The presentence report relies greatly on information already available in public records, such as educational background, residence history and employment information. See I.C.R. 32(b). In contrast, a psychosexual evaluation like the one Estrada faced is more in-depth and personal, and includes an inquiry into the defendant’s sexual history, with verification by polygraph being highly recommended. Because of the nature of the information sought, a defendant is more likely to make incriminating statements during a psychosexual evaluation than during a routine presentence investigation. As the district court in this ease concluded, “the psychosexual evaluation contained information concerning Estrada’s ‘future dangerousnessl ”

Id. at 562, 149 P.3d at 837. Although the Court was not directly addressing the issue, the Court appears to have indicated that a “routine” presentence investigation is not a critical stage.

The majority of other courts to directly address this issue agree with the indication in Estrada. Several federal courts have held that a routine presentence investigation is not a critical stage of the proceedings in a non-capital case. See United States v. Benlian, 63 F.3d 824, 827 (9th Cir.1995); United States v. Gordon, 4 F.3d 1567, 1572 (10th Cir.1993); United States v. Tisdale, 952 F.2d 934, 940 (6th Cir.1992); United States v. Hicks, 948 F.2d 877, 885 (4th Cir.1991); United States v. Woods, 907 F.2d 1540, 1543 (5th Cir.1990); United States v. Jackson, 886 F.2d 838, 845 (7th Cir.1989). Furthermore, many state courts have likewise concluded that a non-capital presentence investigation is not a critical stage. See e.g. Musgrove v. State, 638 So.2d 1347, 1352 (Ala.Crim.App.1992), aff'd 638 So.2d 1360, 1363 n. 1 (Ala.1993); Lang v. State, 461 N.E.2d 1110, 1115-16 (Ind.1984); People v. Daniels, 149 Mich. App. 602, 386 N.W.2d 609, 613 (1986); State v. Barber, 494 N.W.2d 497, 501-02 (Minn.Ct.App.1993); People v. Cortijo, 291 A.D.2d 352, 352, 739 N.Y.S.2d 19 (2002); State v. Knapp, 111 Wis.2d 380, 330 N.W.2d 242, 245 (Ct.App.1983).

Despite the majority view of other courts, Stuart maintains that he was entitled *471to effective assistance of counsel prior to and during his presentence investigation. Stuart’s affidavit averred that counsel did not help him fill out the PSI questionnaire. Stuart, however, has not distinguished his presentence investigation from any other routine presentenee investigation. Stuart’s reliance on United States v. Leonti, 326 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.2003), therefore, is misplaced. In Leonti, the court held that the defendant was entitled to assistance of counsel in his attempts to provide substantial assistance to the government under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines — a procedure that is “far from being routine” and is “marked by significant uncertainty and the accompanying possibilities for prejudice to the defendant’s interests.” Id. at 1120. Furthermore, Stuart’s assertion that we must remand for the district court to determine if his presentence interview was a critical stage is unpersuasive. The district court apparently assumed, without deciding, that the presentence interview was a critical stage. Otherwise, the district court would have had no need to address whether counsel’s performance was ineffective. We hold that Stuart’s routine presentenee interview was not a critical stage of the adversarial proceedings. Stuart’s counsel could not, therefore, have provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise Stuart prior to or during the interview and in failing to help him fill out the presentence questionnaire.

IV.

CONCLUSION

Stuart’s routine presentence interview was not a critical stage of the adversarial proceedings and, therefore, Stuart’s counsel could not have provided ineffective assistance by failing to advise Stuart concerning his presentence investigation. We affirm the district court’s order summarily dismissing Stuart’s application for post-conviction relief. No costs or attorney fees are awarded on appeal.