Background
A jury convicted Steven Ronald Ennis, Jr. in 2018 of felony lewd conduct with a minor and two counts of felony sexual abuse of a child. He received concurrent sentences including life with 20 years fixed for lewd conduct and 25 years with 20 years fixed for each sexual-abuse count.
In post-conviction proceedings, Ennis submitted a sworn affidavit alleging that the State offered him a plea agreement of five years fixed and ten years indeterminate, that he accepted it, and that he instructed trial counsel to communicate his acceptance. He alleged counsel did not do so and the offer was withdrawn during trial. Trial counsel’s affidavit gave the opposite account: Ennis rejected the offer and instead proposed an unsuccessful counteroffer. The district court summarily dismissed the petition, and the Court of Appeals affirmed on the view that post-conviction counsel had conceded the claim lacked merit.
The Court’s Holding
The Idaho Supreme Court vacated the judgment dismissing the post-conviction petition, reversed the summary-dismissal order, and remanded for further proceedings. It held that post-conviction counsel’s statements at the hearing expressed counsel’s own ethical assessment while seeking withdrawal and did not bind Ennis, who made clear that he disagreed and claimed to possess supporting evidence.
The Court further held that key parts of Ennis’ affidavit were admissible, non-conclusory assertions based on his personal knowledge: the plea terms, his acceptance, his instruction to counsel, and the later withdrawal of the offer. Although the affidavit also included an inadmissible statement about lead counsel’s state of mind and hearsay concerning trial counsel’s stated reason, its admissible allegations conflicted materially with trial counsel’s affidavit about what Ennis directed counsel to do. That factual and credibility dispute barred summary disposition on deficient performance. The Court expressed no opinion on Strickland prejudice because the State had not sought dismissal on that ground and the district court had not given notice of such a basis.
Key Takeaways
- A petitioner’s detailed sworn account of accepting a plea offer can create a triable factual dispute when trial counsel gives a contrary account.
- The decision whether to accept a plea offer belongs to the defendant; counsel may not override an accepted offer based on counsel’s belief that trial can be won.
- A post-conviction lawyer’s statement of personal disagreement with a client’s claim, particularly while seeking withdrawal, is not necessarily a binding concession by the client.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that summary disposition in Idaho post-conviction cases cannot be used to resolve competing witness accounts or assess a petitioner’s credibility. Where admissible affidavit testimony creates a genuine factual dispute over whether counsel carried out a client’s instruction to accept a plea offer, an evidentiary hearing is required.
It also limits the grounds for dismissal to those raised by the State or properly noticed by the court, leaving the prejudice question for further proceedings rather than deciding it on an unraised basis.