Murray v. State
828 P.2d 1323 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for an attorney's failure to file a motion to reduce a sentence may be brought in a post-conviction relief proceeding. However, counsel's performance is not deficient if the attorney clearly communicates their unwillingness to file the motion and the client, with ample time remaining before the deadline, takes no further action to pursue the matter.
Facts:
- In October 1986, Leon Murray led police on a high-speed chase in a stolen vehicle, ending when his vehicle collided with a police vehicle at a roadblock.
- A public defender was appointed to represent Murray.
- Pursuant to a plea bargain, Murray pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault on a peace officer.
- After sentencing, Murray discussed his desire to file a motion to reconsider his sentences with his public defender.
- The public defender informed Murray that he would not file such a motion and suggested Murray seek assistance from law clerks at the penitentiary.
- Within two months of his incarceration and well within the 120-day deadline for filing the motion, Murray discovered that the penitentiary law clerks would not assist him.
- Murray took no further action, such as re-contacting his attorney or writing to the court, before the filing deadline expired.
Procedural Posture:
- Leon Murray was convicted upon a guilty plea in an Idaho district court (trial court) and received two concurrent, ten-year indeterminate sentences.
- Murray did not file a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction.
- Eighteen months after sentencing, Murray filed a pro se motion under I.C.R. 35 to reduce his sentences, which the district court denied as untimely.
- Murray then filed a pro se application for post-conviction relief, which the district court summarily dismissed.
- Counsel for Murray filed a second application for post-conviction relief in the same district court case, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure to file a timely Rule 35 motion.
- The district court held an evidentiary hearing and entered an order denying the second application for post-conviction relief.
- Murray (appellant) appealed the district court's final order to the Court of Appeals of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney's failure to file a motion to reduce a sentence (I.C.R. 35 motion) on a client's behalf constitute ineffective assistance of counsel when the attorney informed the client of his unwillingness to file and the client, knowing this, took no further action before the filing deadline expired?
Opinions:
Majority - Walters, Chief Judge.
No. While a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to file a Rule 35 motion is properly brought under the post-conviction procedure act, the public defender's conduct in this case did not constitute ineffective assistance. To establish ineffective assistance, a claimant must show both deficient performance and prejudice. Here, the public defender's performance was not deficient because he clearly communicated his unwillingness to file the motion. Once Murray learned that the alternative assistance suggested by counsel was unavailable, the responsibility shifted to him to take further action, as he still had ample time before the 120-day filing deadline expired. His failure to contact his counsel again or to write to the court directly prevents a finding that his counsel's performance was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Analysis:
This decision establishes in Idaho that ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to post-sentencing discretionary motions, like a motion to reduce a sentence, are cognizable in post-conviction proceedings. However, the ruling also sets a significant precedent by placing a burden of diligence on the defendant. It clarifies that an attorney's duty is not absolute; once counsel clearly communicates a refusal to act, a client who is aware of a pending deadline cannot remain passive and later claim ineffective assistance. This holding balances the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel with a client's responsibility to participate in their own case, preventing defendants from using the claim as a fallback after their own inaction.
