Pizzuto v. State, 134 Idaho 793

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the summary dismissal of Gerald Ross Pizzuto Jr.’s third amended petition for post-conviction relief. The court held that the alleged Brady evidence was cumulative or impeaching and therefore facially insufficient under Idaho Code § 19-2719(5)(b), and that the claims were also untimely because the information was known or reasonably discoverable earlier. The court also upheld the trial judge’s decision not to disqualify himself for alleged prejudice.

Holdings

1. A successive post-conviction petition is facially insufficient under Idaho Code section 19-2719(5)(b) when the newly asserted evidence is solely cumulative or impeaching and would not, even if true, cast doubt on the reliability of the conviction or sentence.
2. A successive capital post-conviction petition must be dismissed when the claims were known or reasonably should have been known during an earlier post-conviction proceeding, or when the petitioner waited an unreasonable time after discovering them.
3. A judge need not disqualify himself absent a showing that prejudice is directed against the litigant and is of such a nature and character that the litigant could not receive a fair and impartial proceeding; the trial judge's disqualification decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Pizzuto's successive third amended petition for post-conviction relief under Idaho Code section 19-2719(5).
2. Whether Judge Reinhardt abused his discretion by declining to disqualify himself from the post-conviction proceedings.

Disposition

affirmed