IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 48338 MELVIN JEREMY SAVAGE, ) ) Petitioner-Appellant, ) Boise, February 2022 Term ) v. ) Opinion Filed: June 2, 2022 ) STATE OF IDAHO, ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk ) Respondent. ) ____________________________________) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge. The decision of the district court is affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, Idaho State Public Defender, Boise, attorney for Appellant. Brian Dickson argued. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, attorney for Respondent. Ken Jorgensen argued. _________________________ BEVAN, Chief Justice. After he was convicted of first-degree arson, Melvin Savage filed a post-conviction petition alleging his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him of his right against self- incrimination during a deposition that took place in a civil lawsuit involving the arson allegation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that counsel’s failure to advise Savage of his right to remain silent constituted deficient performance; however, Savage failed to prove he was prejudiced by that deficient performance because he was already intent on resolving his criminal case by entering a guilty plea at the time of the civil deposition. Savage filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. Savage now appeals to this Court, arguing that the district court erred by limiting its prejudice analysis to an evaluation of whether Savage would have gone to trial instead of considering whether Savage demonstrated that the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. For the reasons set out, we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 The facts relevant to the issues on appeal are not in dispute. Savage was accused of setting a fire at the home of his ex-wife’s divorce attorney, who was coincidentally married to a police officer. While Savage was being detained out of state, he made multiple recorded phone calls to his mother in which he indicated, several times, that his plan was to accept a plea and work to get the case resolved as quickly as possible. Savage was appointed public defender Trent Grant to represent him in the criminal case. While Grant was representing Savage, the victims of the fire filed a civil lawsuit against Savage. Savage received a subpoena to have his deposition taken in the civil case while his criminal proceedings were ongoing. Savage asked Grant whether he should participate in the deposition or if he could decline to answer questions, to which Grant advised Savage that he could not represent him in the civil matter. It was undisputed that Grant never advised Savage that he (1) had a right to plead the Fifth Amendment in the civil deposition and (2) could refuse to answer incriminating questions. Ultimately, Savage attended the deposition and made several incriminating statements regarding the arson charges that were pending against him. The State received a copy of Savage’s civil deposition transcript; however, the prosecutor purportedly did not …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals