Pizzuto v. State, 146 Idaho 720

Summary

The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the dismissal of Gerald Ross Pizzuto Jr.'s fifth petition for post-conviction relief challenging his death sentence under Atkins v. Virginia. The court held that the petition was timely for purposes of the appeal but that Pizzuto failed to present a prima facie case of intellectual disability because the record did not establish an IQ of 70 or below before age eighteen. The court also upheld the denial of judicial disqualification motions and rejected the remaining claims presented.

Holdings

1. A successive petition must generally be filed within forty-two days after the petitioner knew or reasonably should have known of the claim, unless extraordinary circumstances prevented filing within that period; even then, the petition must be filed within a reasonable time after the claim became known or knowable. Because the court had not previously clarified this rule and the district court applied an incorrect trigger date, Pizzuto's petition was treated as timely in this case.
2. To avoid summary dismissal of an Atkins-based post-conviction claim, the applicant must present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact on each statutory element: an IQ of 70 or below, significant limitations in adaptive functioning in at least two specified areas, and onset of both conditions before age eighteen. Pizzuto failed to make that showing.
3. A district court may grant summary judgment to a nonmoving party when the issue was presented by the opposing party's motion and the applicable summary-judgment standard is satisfied.
4. Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 40(d)(1)(I)(ii) bars a party from disqualifying without cause the judge who entered the conviction or sentence being challenged in a post-conviction proceeding.
5. The district judge did not err in refusing disqualification for cause where the asserted bias was based on prior judicial findings and previously known allegations that were not timely or properly presented as grounds for disqualification.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the assigned district judge was subject to disqualification without cause under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 40(d)(1).
2. Whether the district judge was required to disqualify himself for cause based on alleged prior bias or factual findings.
3. Whether Pizzuto's successive Atkins-based petition was untimely under Idaho Code section 19-2719.
4. Whether Pizzuto presented a genuine issue of material fact establishing a prima facie case under Idaho Code section 19-2515A.
5. Whether the district court erred by dismissing the petition without ordering additional mental-health testing.
6. Whether the failure to hold an evidentiary hearing denied equal protection.
7. Whether Idaho Code section 19-2515A violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Disposition

affirmed