1. STATE
Docket No. 44269
SUPREMECOURT (IcahO)
2. Denial Umpublished opinion February Ist 2017 Court
3. of Appeals. Petition for Review timely submitted and
2017 by Idaho State Supreme Court..
4. Denied
February
Issues Raised
5. Federa/ Violations under Potection of Us.onst.
RE!
6.
7. I/
Violations of a federal statue by the State of
8. Idaho be cause violations rose to the level of a fundamental
9. defect that in herently resulted in a complete misofjustice,
and became inconsistant with
10. Carriage
demands of farr procedure.
Here the Violations petitioner alleges
are Con12.
13. gnizable because
they
constitutional
were ofa
14. maghitude,
improprieties created
their
fundamental un-fairness
and
violated
15. that
a
Amendment
Right to
16. petitioner's Fourteenth
Including
1, Due
Process.
18. F: fth
ficant
1. Judical error and claims
of
20. evicence.
2. 15
Ineffective Asistance of Counel: Rght to
x2. A/.
24.

Did petitioner make a involuntarily unknown and
B/.
un-intelligent plea-Through ineffective assistance of.
counel and volations of his thAmendment right to
de process protectedunder he Unted States Const
STRUCTURAL ERROR not subject to
creating
harmless
err.

Did
Defense Counsel prosecution, and Court
c/.
u.S. Const Amend, by
Violate
petitioners
5thand 6th
refusing to callerucial witness to give testimony
that would change ome o roding to
actualinnocence's.

Did the
State District sentencing Court vrolate
D/.
a Tarnted PSI with out further acdluwsement
ofrights
after
hq pang
threat Guilty
Plea and other inducements
to
State to this
Petitioner he could remain silent and not speak
with a PsI investigator or fill aut a questionare
or allow the coust to use an Old.

A/.
voluntary plea

B/.
to
adequately investagate the facts of the case.

Did district Court err by denying motion
c/.
conflict free couns
for

D/. Vi:olations of a Federal statue or amend.junder the
protection of the l.S. Const, By
Responelents and Idaho State tose
Pafundamental defect tha iherentyresled
to the level
in a complete miscarriage of justice that was inconsistant
with the rudimentary demands of fair procedure.
Petitioner asserts such violations are congnizable
because they are of a constitutional magnitude and ther
improprietres created afundamental un-famnes that
Volated petitioners h Amencment Right t Due Prcss
Orolations creating
Structural Errors. that if allowed to be
Agued wou'd have ked to ACTUAL ONNONCENCE

Guilty by Forced Plea through:
A/.
signorance, incomprehension, coercion,terror, subtle and
blatant threats Violating

Did petitioner make an involuntarily unknown and unintelligent plea through ineffective assistance of counsel and violations of his 6th Amendment right to due process protected under the United States Constitution, creating structural error not subject to harmless error?