Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 26, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Best v. State

Idaho Supreme Court

• Citations: None known

• Docket Number: 53233

• Opinion

• Authorities (17)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (3.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53233

WADE ALEXZANDER BEST, )
)
Petitioner-Appellant, )
Boise, February 2026 Term
)
v. )
Opinion Filed: March 26, 2026
)
STATE OF IDAHO, )
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
)
Respondent. )
_______________________________________ )

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho,
Bonner County. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge.

The decision of the district court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for Appellant. Andrea
W. Reynolds, argued.

Raúl R. Labrador, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for Respondent. Kale D. Gans,
argued.

BRODY, Justice.
Wade Alexzander Best appeals from the district court’s judgment summarily dismissing
his petition for post-conviction relief. Today we reiterate that, when a district court summarily
dismisses a post-conviction petition sua sponte, especially when the dismissal is premised on
grounds not argued by the State, Idaho Code section 19-4906(b) requires the district court to (1)
apprise the applicant of “its reasons for so doing” and (2) afford the petitioner “an opportunity to
reply within 20 days to the proposed dismissal.” I.C. § 19-4906(b). We further reiterate that a lack-
of-notice challenge to the summary dismissal of a post-conviction petition may be raised for the
first time on appeal. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district court’s decision in
part, reverse in part, and remand the matter for further proceedings.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In July 2019, Best entered a plea pursuant to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970),
(an “Alford plea”), to one count of lewd and lascivious conduct with a minor child. The district

1
court sentenced Best to a term of twenty years in prison with ten years fixed. Best subsequently
appealed on the sole ground that his sentence was excessive. The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed
his judgment of conviction and sentence in an unpublished opinion. State v. Best, No. 47515, 2020
WL 4015083, at *1 (Idaho Ct. App. July 16, 2020) (unpublished) (per curiam).
Best subsequently filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief and a supporting
affidavit. In his petition, Best asserted five claims of error pertaining to the trial-level proceedings:
(1) violation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination/entrapment because he was
not provided Miranda warnings prior to making statements during a recorded phone call between
himself and the mother of the victim; (2) imposition of excessive bail; (3) violation of a pre-
existing, binding plea agreement from a prior Kootenai County case; (4) insufficient evidence to
charge or prosecute him for the crime; and (5) falsification of information in the probable cause
affidavit (collectively referred to as “trial-error claims”). In addition, Best asserted an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim based on four distinct allegations involving his trial counsel’s
performance. Specifically, Best alleged his trial counsel was ineffective for: (1) failing to explain
the terms of the Alford plea and coercing him into signing the plea agreement; (2) failing to seek
suppression of the recorded phone call between Best and the mother of the victim; (3) negotiating
a plea agreement that violated a previous plea agreement in a separate Kootenai County case; and
(4) failing to devote sufficient time to discuss the case with Best, investigate the charges, and
prepare a defense.
The district court appointed post-conviction counsel to Best and granted counsel leave to
file an amended petition. Best’s counsel did not file an amended petition but instead filed a
certification, stating he had “spoken with Mr. Best on a couple occasions” and they both agreed
“the Petition – albeit in layman terms – sets forth [Best’s] claimed issues adequately,” and “no
new or modified petition will be filed . . . .” Thereafter, the State moved for summary disposition
of Best’s petition for post-conviction relief.
As part of its motion, the State also requested an order deeming the attorney-client privilege
between Best and his trial counsel waived and sought additional time to file affidavits and a
memorandum in support of its motion. About five months later—after the district court issued an
order deeming the attorney-client privilege waived—the State filed a memorandum in support of
its motion for summary disposition. The memorandum set forth the applicable legal standards
governing post-conviction relief, followed by the legal requirements for a claim of ineffective

2
assistance of counsel. The State then addressed several of Best’s allegations pertaining to his trial
counsel’s performance. As with the State’s motion for summary dismissal, the memorandum
contained no mention of Best’s trial-error claims.
Best did not file a response to the State’s motion for summary disposition but did file a
stipulation to submit the State’s motion for decision based on the affidavits and verified pleadings.
At the hearing on the motion, the district court expressed confusion regarding the intent of the
stipulation:
[District court]: . . . So I am baffled by the stipulation. . . . I don’t know what
that means. You never responded to the motion for summary disposition.
[Best’s post-conviction counsel]: Mr. Best’s affidavit was lodged some time
back and he had a verified petition.
[District court]: Right. Right.
[Best’s post-conviction counsel]: And the State filed its motion.
....
And we were just going to submit it for decision without argument just
based on those documents.
[District court]: So no response to the request for summary dismissal?
[Best’s post-conviction counsel]: Well, it was opposed, but there was not a
written response, no.
His affidavit disagrees with the various facts.
Best’s post-conviction counsel mentioned that there was an additional affidavit filed, and the
district court responded that it had not received it. The district court then allowed Best time to file
the additional affidavit before it issued its decision on the motion for summary disposition.
Best’s post-conviction counsel then filed Best’s additional affidavit, which stated Best
stood by the allegations made in his petition and provided more detail regarding his ineffective
assistance of trial counsel claim. Best’s post-conviction counsel later filed three exhibits attached
to Best’s affidavit, including: (1) a letter sent by Best’s trial counsel to Best approximately two-
months after the Idaho Court of Appeals had rendered its opinion on his direct appeal, marked with
handwritten notes and comments from Best; (2) a portion of the case summary for the underlying
criminal case, also marked with Best’s handwritten notations and comments, including a comment
that a letter to the judge from Best concerned the “coerced plea”; and (3) a notice from a deputy
clerk of the court in Best’s underlying criminal case advising against ex parte communication with
the judge.

3
Following its review of all submitted materials, the district court issued its decision
granting the State’s motion for summary disposition and entered judgment dismissing Best’s
petition for post-conviction relief. The district court stated that it took judicial notice of Best’s
underlying criminal case that gave rise to the petition for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Rule
201 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence. The district court explained that “only [Best’s] claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel is appropriate for post-conviction relief” because Best’s other
claims “could have been raised on direct appeal”; thus, they could not be considered in a petition
for post-conviction relief pursuant to Idaho Code section 19-4901(b). The district court then
concluded that Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim was “clearly disproven by the record
in the criminal action or are unsupported by admissible evidence[,]” and Best was therefore not
entitled to relief as a matter of law. Best timely appealed.
The Idaho Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. Best subsequently filed
a petition for review with this Court, arguing, among other things, that the Court of Appeals’
decision erroneously held that Best failed to preserve his lack-of-notice challenge because he did
not file a motion for reconsideration. We granted review.
II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
“When addressing a petition for review, this Court will give ‘serious consideration to the
views of the Court of Appeals, but directly reviews the decision of the lower court.’ ” Rodriquez
v. State, 171 Idaho 634, 641, 524 P.3d 913, 920 (2023) (quoting Marr v. State, 163 Idaho 33, 36,
408 P.3d 31, 34 (2017)). “Post-conviction proceedings are civil in nature and therefore the
applicant must prove the allegations by a preponderance of the evidence.” Dunlap v. State (Dunlap
III), 141 Idaho 50, 56, 106 P.3d 376, 382 (2004) (citing McKinney v. State, 133 Idaho 695, 699–
700, 992 P.2d 144, 148–49 (1999)). “This Court freely reviews the summary dismissal of a petition
for post-conviction relief.” Bell v. State, ___ Idaho __, __, 572 P.3d 209, 214 (2025) (citing
Dunlap v. State (Dunlap VI), 159 Idaho 280, 294–95, 360 P.3d 289, 303–04 (2015)). “ ‘In
determining whether a motion for summary disposition is properly granted,’ this Court applies the
same standard as the trial court and ‘must review the facts in a light most favorable to the petitioner,
and determine whether they would entitle petitioner to relief if accepted as true.’ ” Id.
(quoting Dunlap VI, 159 Idaho at 295, 360 P.3d at 304). “When a genuine issue of material fact is
shown to exist, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted.” Id. (quoting Dunlap VI, 159 Idaho at
295, 360 P.3d at 304). However, “the Court is not required to accept either the applicant’s mere

4
conclusory allegations, unsupported by admissible evidence, or the applicant’s conclusions of
law.” Id. (alteration omitted) (quoting Dunlap VI, 159 Idaho at 295, 360 P.3d at 304).
III. ANALYSIS
A. The district court erred by summarily dismissing Best’s trial-error claims without
providing the requisite twenty-days’ notice of its reasons for dismissal pursuant to
Idaho Code section 19-4906(b).
The district court summarily dismissed Best’s trial-error claims after concluding that they
could have been brought in his direct appeal and were therefore forfeited under Idaho Code section
19-4901(b). Best contends the district court erred by dismissing his trial-error claims on grounds
not raised by the State without providing the twenty-day notice required under Idaho Code section
19-4906(b). He maintains that the State did not address his trial-error claims in its motion for
summary disposition or supporting memorandum but only argued for the dismissal of some of his
ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Best’s claim of error is well taken.
Under section 19-4906(b) of the Idaho Code, a district court is authorized to dismiss a
petition for post-conviction relief “if the court is satisfied—after reviewing the record and all
submitted materials pertaining to the petition—that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Bell v.
State, ___ Idaho __, __, 572 P.3d 209, 214–15 (2025). A court may dismiss a petition based on
the State’s motion for summary dismissal, or it may do so of its own accord after giving the
petitioner twenty days to respond to the district court’s proposed dismissal:
When a court is satisfied, on the basis of the application, the answer or motion, and
the record, that the applicant is not entitled to post-conviction relief and no purpose
would be served by any further proceedings, it may indicate to the parties its
intention to dismiss the application and its reasons for so doing. The applicant shall
be given an opportunity to reply within 20 days to the proposed dismissal. In light
of the reply, or on default thereof, the court may order the application dismissed or
grant leave to file an amended application or, direct that the proceedings otherwise
continue. Disposition on the pleadings and record is not proper if there exists a
material issue of fact.
I.C. § 19-4906(b).
We recently explained that the twenty-day notice requirement provides a petitioner the
same opportunity to establish a genuine issue of material fact or address other legal inadequacies
as the petitioner would have had when responding to a motion for summary disposition filed by
the State:
The purpose of the twenty-day notice requirement is to provide the petitioner the
opportunity to establish a genuine dispute of material fact or address other legal

5
inadequacies identified in the court’s notice. McKinney v. State, 162 Idaho 286,
293, 396 P.3d 1168, 1175 (2017). “[T]he reason subsection (b) requires the twenty-
day notice, but not subsection (c), is because the subsection (c) motion itself serves
as notice that summary dismissal is being sought.” Saykhamchone v. State, 127
Idaho 319, 322, 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing State v. Christensen, 102 Idaho
487, 488, 632 P.2d 676, 677 (1981)). After the State has filed a motion for summary
dismissal pursuant to subsection (b), the petitioner is allowed twenty days to
respond, which provides the opportunity to establish an issue of material fact. Id.
Where a trial court dismisses a claim for post-conviction relief on an independent
ground that was not argued by the State, the petitioner must be provided with a
twenty-day notice period and an opportunity to respond. Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho
517, 523, 236 P.3d 1277, 1283 (2010). “Where the dismissal is based upon the
grounds offered by the State, additional notice is unnecessary.” Id.
Bell, ___ Idaho at ___, 572 P.3d at 215 (alteration in original) (emphasis added). Accordingly, a
petition for post-conviction relief may be summarily dismissed by a court acting sua sponte only
when the petitioner has been provided with (1) the reasons for dismissal of his claims; and (2) a
twenty-day period to respond to those reasons for dismissal. See I.C. § 19-4906(b); Ferrier v. State,
135 Idaho 797, 799, 25 P.3d 110, 112 (2001).
Here, there is no dispute that the State did not mention or reference section 19-4901(b) or
the trial-error claims at all in its motion for summary disposition or supporting memorandum.
Nonetheless, the State contends that its general ground for dismissal—that Best’s petition failed
to raise a genuine issue of material fact and he was not entitled to relief as a matter of law—was
part of the reason for the district court’s dismissal of the trial-error claims; thus, it was “sufficient
to meet the notice requirements” under Idaho Code section 19-4906(b). (Quoting Kelly v. State,
149 Idaho 517, 523, 236 P.3d 1277, 1283 (2010)). We disagree.
The relevant portion of the State’s motion for summary disposition consisted of two
sentences:
COMES NOW State of Idaho, by and through Louis E. Marshall, Bonner
County Prosecuting Attorney, and does hereby move for summary disposition of
Wade Alexzander Best’s Petition for Post-Conviction Relief and Affidavit of Facts
pursuant to Idaho Code [section] 19-4906(c) on the general basis that in light of the
pleadings, answers, admissions and the record of the underlying case, the Petition
fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact.
Wade Alexzander Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail to
raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding both deficient performance of trial
counsel and resulting prejudice.
Contrary to the State’s position, there was no general reference in the motion to the dismissal of
all claims if they fail as a matter of law, much less any mention of the trial-error claims. Likewise,

6
the State’s supporting memorandum provided only the applicable legal standards governing post-
conviction petitions generally, then provided an analysis of Best’s claim titled “Ineffective
Assistance of Counsel.” Importantly, the “Applicable Legal Standards” section of the
memorandum did not state that post-conviction claims should be dismissed if they fail as a matter
of law. Rather, it referenced the importance of supporting factual allegations with admissible
evidence and the district court’s authority to take judicial notice of the record in the underlying
criminal case.
This Court addressed the legal standards governing a motion for summary disposition in
DeRuché v. State, 146 Idaho 599, 601, 200 P.3d 1148, 1150 (2009). There, this Court explained
that post-conviction proceedings are governed by the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, including
Rule 7(b)(1)(B)’s requirement that a motion state with particularity the grounds for the relief
sought including the number of the applicable civil rule, if any. Id. at 601–02, 200 P.3d at 1150–
51; I.R.C.P. 7(b)(1)(B). Rule 7(b)(1)(B) only requires “reasonable particularity.” DeRuché, 146
Idaho at 601, 200 P.3d at 1150. The purpose of the reasonable particularity requirement is to ensure
a petitioner has notice of the grounds for dismissal such that he “cannot assert surprise or
prejudice[.]” Id. This Court then provided an explanation of how the “reasonable particularity”
requirement can be met and gave examples how the requirement is to be applied in particular types
of cases:
If the ground for summary disposition is that assertions by the applicant are not
admissible evidence, stating the ground with reasonable particularity requires no
more than the level of particularity required to object to the admissibility of that
evidence, such as that it is conclusory, hearsay, or lacking foundation. It is rarely
necessary to further explain those objections. If the ground for summary disposition
is that there is no admissible evidence on an essential element of a claim, reasonable
particularity only requires pointing that out. For example, claims of ineffective
assistance of defense counsel or of prosecutorial misconduct in withholding
evidence favorable to the accused both require prejudice to the defendant. State v.
Yakovac, 145 Idaho 437, 444, 180 P.3d 476, 483 (2008) (a claim for ineffective
assistance of counsel requires a showing “there is a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s errors, the result would have been different”); [Dunlap III], 141 Idaho
50, 64, 106 P.3d 376, 390 (2004) (an essential element of a Brady violation is that
“prejudice must have ensued”). Reasonable particularity only requires pointing out
that there is a lack of evidence showing prejudice. It does not require explaining
what further evidence is necessary, particularly since it may not exist.
Id. at 601–02, 200 P.3d at 1150–51.

7
In each of the examples, it is clear that the petitioner could not assert surprise or prejudice
regarding the dismissal of his claims because the petitioner would have known that the State sought
to dismiss a specific claim (e.g., ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct) and
would have further known the ground for the dismissal (e.g., petitioner failed to allege facts
demonstrating prejudice, a necessary element for both ineffective assistance of counsel and
prosecutorial misconduct). And even where the State’s ground for dismissal of the entire petition
was due to a lack of admissible evidence, the petitioner would still be on notice of his petition’s
general deficiencies and have an opportunity to respond by amending his petition to include
supporting affidavits or other admissible evidence.
In this case, the State did not address Best’s trial-error claims in its motion or supporting
memorandum, much less warn Best that they could be dismissed under Idaho Code section 19-
4901(b) on the ground that he could have raised those same claims on direct appeal. Nonetheless,
relying on Workman v. State, 144 Idaho 518, 164 P.3d 798 (2007), the State argues the district
court’s dismissal of Best’s trial-error claims did not amount to a sua sponte dismissal because its
grounds for doing so “were not so different” from the grounds argued by the State in support of
the State’s motion for summary disposition. The State’s reliance on Workman is misplaced.
Workman concerned a pro-se petition for post-conviction relief in which the petitioner
alleged two claims: (1) “that his guilty plea was invalid because he was under the influence of
antipsychotic medication when he entered the plea[,]” and (2) ineffective assistance of counsel.
144 Idaho at 522, 164 P.3d at 802. The State filed a motion to dismiss which the district court
subsequently granted. Id. Relevant here, the petitioner argued on appeal that the district court erred
by not providing him twenty days’ notice of summary dismissal “because the court relied on
grounds not raised or argued by the State.” Id. at 524, 164 P.3d at 804. This Court rejected that
argument, noting that the district court had provided multiple reasons for dismissal, some of which
were the same as those argued by the State:
Both the State argued and the district court concluded that Workman had failed to
present evidence to support his claims that his guilty plea was involuntary or
otherwise invalid, and both the State and the district court observed that many of
Workman’s claims regarding his guilty plea either were or should have been raised
on direct appeal. The State argued, and the district court found, that Workman
failed to allege facts showing that he met the test for ineffective assistance of
counsel under [Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)]. There is significant
overlap between the reasoning in the district court’s decision and the State’s motion
to dismiss. The district court’s reasoning for dismissal of Workman’s petition is not

8
so different in kind as to transform its decision into a sua sponte dismissal and,
therefore, the district court was not required to give [twenty] days’ notice of its
intent to dismiss.
Id. (emphasis added). It is clear from this discussion that the State did address all the petitioner’s
claims for post-conviction relief. This is a critical distinction from the facts here, where even the
State acknowledged that it did not address Best’s trial-error claims in its motion for summary
disposition or supporting memorandum.
The State also argues that Best “forfeited” his right to an opportunity to be heard on the
district court’s grounds for dismissal of his trial-error claims by stipulating to a decision on the
State’s motion for summary disposition without filing a response. In support of this contention,
the State references the hearing transcript in which the district court stated it was “baffled by the
stipulation” because Best “never responded to the motion for summary disposition.” The State
argues that Best’s failure to respond to its motion was “tantamount to Best forfeiting any response
below to the sought-after dismissal of his claims.” Id. The State cites to Puckett v. United States,
in which the Supreme Court re-iterated that “[n]o procedural principle is more familiar to this
Court than that a . . . right may be forfeited in criminal as well as civil cases by the failure to make
timely assertion of the right before a tribunal having jurisdiction to determine it.” 556 U.S. 129,
134 (2009) (alteration in original) (quoting Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 444 (1944)). The
State’s argument is unavailing. While Best may have waived his opportunity to respond to the
arguments the State raised in its motion and briefing, Best did not forfeit a right to respond to the
district court’s dismissal of claims on its own initiative on grounds not argued by the State.
As a final argument, the State suggests that the district court’s ground for dismissal is not
subject to the twenty-day notice requirement under Idaho Code section 19-4906(b). The State
contends that the notice requirements under Idaho Code section 19-4906(b) apply only where there
is a dismissal of post-conviction claims based on the merits and not where the claims are forfeited
under section 19-4901 because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate in the petition itself that
those claims “could not have been raised sooner.” The plain language of Idaho Code section 19-
4901 does not support the State’s contention.
While section 19-4901(b) prohibits a district court from considering claims in a petition
for post-conviction relief that could have been raised on direct appeal, it also provides the
petitioner an opportunity to explain why such claims could not have been raised earlier:

9
Any issue which could have been raised on direct appeal, but was not, is forfeited
and may not be considered in post-conviction proceedings, unless it appears to the
court, on the basis of a substantial factual showing by affidavit, deposition or
otherwise, that the asserted basis for relief raises a substantial doubt about the
reliability of the finding of guilt and could not, in the exercise of due diligence,
have been presented earlier.
I.C. § 19-4901(b) (emphasis added). Importantly, nothing in the plain language of this section
requires a petitioner to explain why the claims were not asserted on direct appeal in the petitioner’s
original filing. The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of how the petitioner may make this
showing to the district court by including the phrase “or otherwise,” alongside a showing by
affidavit or deposition. It does not contain any temporal or procedural limitations on when or how
this showing must occur, and there is no language excepting the dismissal of claims under this
section from the notice requirements under section 19-4906(b). Accordingly, we reject the State’s
argument that the notice requirements under section 19-4906(b) do not apply to the dismissal of
claims under section 19-4901(b).
On a final note, while this Court does not typically review a Court of Appeals’ decision
directly, we want to make clear that this Court’s decision in Kelly v. State, 149 Idaho 517, 522,
236 P.3d 1277, 1282 (2010), where we held that a lack-of-notice challenge may be raised for the
first time on appeal, remains good law. The Court of Appeals’ decision in this case appeared to
disavow Kelly, and instead held that a claim that the petitioner did not have twenty days’ notice of
the district court’s reasons for dismissal of his post-conviction relief claims must be raised before
the district court in a motion to reconsider under Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 11.2(b) or through
a Rule 60(b)(1) motion to grant relief from judgment based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or
excusable neglect, before being raised on appeal. Best v. State, No. 49974, 2024 WL 2131662, at
*6–9 (Idaho Ct. App. May 13, 2024) (unpublished). We disagree.
The Court of Appeals recognized that Idaho’s appellate courts will not consider
unpreserved claims of error for the first time on appeal. Id., 2024 WL 2131662, at *3–4. However,
as we recently explained, this Court’s preservation doctrine is not entirely inflexible. State v.
Robertson, ___ Idaho __, __, 579 P.3d 942, 953 (2025). Instead, it balances policies of
encouraging trial courts to resolve claims of error, incentivizing trial court vigilance in enforcing
the rules of criminal procedure and discouraging “sandbagging” by lawyers, against the more
practical consideration of whether a preservation requirement is feasible and capable of advancing
these policies. Id. In other words, we will not impose preservation requirements on petitioners

10
when satisfying them would be impossible or would not advance these policies. Id. (declining to
impose preservation requirement on criminal defendant challenging validity of waiver of probation
revocation hearing because doing so “would serve no purpose”).
The Court of Appeals appears to find value in a preservation requirement that would
compel post-conviction petitioners to either move the district court to reconsider or move to vacate
the judgment when the petitioner lacks notice of the grounds for summary dismissal. See Best,
2024 WL 2131662, at *3–9. However, there is no such requirement in the Idaho Rules of Civil
Procedure. Moreover, a preservation requirement in this context makes little sense given that the
gravamen of a lack-of-notice claim is that the petitioner was unaware of the grounds for dismissal.
It would essentially require the petitioner, as Best puts it, “to file a motion to reconsider an order
he had no way of anticipating to preserve a challenge to the order on appeal.” In this context, a
preservation requirement would fail to advance the policies typically associated with them and
would prove impractical for post-conviction petitioners.
Accordingly, we reiterate that a petitioner may assert for the first time on appeal that post-
conviction claims were dismissed without any notice in contravention of section 19-4906(b). A
petitioner need not move the district court to reconsider under Rule 11.2(b) or to vacate a final
judgment under Rule 60(b)(1), but if the petitioner does so move, the petitioner must raise the lack-
of-notice claim in order to preserve the issue for appeal. See Bell v. State, ___ Idaho __, __, 572
P.3d 209, 216 (2025). Best was entitled to raise his lack-of-notice claim for the first time on appeal
because he did not move the district court to reconsider or seek relief from the final judgment.
In sum, the district court dismissed Best’s trial-error claims on a ground not argued by the
State and without providing twenty days’ notice under Idaho Code section 19-4906(b). To afford
Best the twenty-day response period mandated by Idaho Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act,
we reverse the district court’s summary dismissal of Best’s trial-error claims and remand for the
district court to provide him with such time.
B. The district court did not err in dismissing Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel
claim without first providing twenty days’ notice under Idaho Code section 19-
4906(b).
Best also argues that the district court erred by dismissing sua sponte his ineffective
assistance of counsel claim without proper notice. He contends that the State’s motion for summary
disposition did not address all factual allegations supporting that claim, particularly those

11
concerning trial counsel’s inadequate preparation and lack of defense strategy. According to Best,
the State failed to respond to allegations that trial counsel:
• failed to interview the alleged victim and her family;
• failed to present any evidence regarding Mr. Best’s relationship with the alleged victim;
• did not make certain arguments in mitigation at sentencing;
• withheld playing the recording of the confrontation call to Best; and
• did not submit forms under Idaho Rules of Evidence 608 or 404(b), which allowed his
character to be used as evidence against him.
Best reasons that, because the State’s motion addressed some, but not all, of the factual allegations
supporting his ineffective-assistance claim, the district court dismissed his ineffective assistance
of counsel claim on different grounds than those raised by the State in its motion, requiring the
court to provide notice of its reasons for the dismissal and twenty days for Best’s reply as required
by Idaho Code section 19-4906(b).
In response, the State argues that the district court dismissed the ineffective assistance
claim on the same grounds as those argued in its motion, namely that Best “fail[ed] to raise a
genuine issue of material fact” to support that claim. As we explain, regardless of which factual
bases are taken as the focal point of Best’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the State’s
motion was sufficient to put Best on notice that the district court could dismiss his claim on
evidentiary grounds absent additional evidence. Thus, when the district court summarily dismissed
Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim on grounds that his factual allegations were “clearly
disproven by the record in the criminal action” and “unsupported by admissible evidence,” Best
had no basis to claim surprise or prejudice.
As discussed, when a district court summarily dismisses a petition for post-conviction relief
on grounds not advanced by the State in a motion, the district court acts on its own initiative and
must follow the procedures for sua sponte dismissal outlined in Idaho Code section 19-4906(b).
Saykhamchone v. State, 127 Idaho 319, 322, 900 P.2d 795, 798 (1995) (citing Gibbs v. State, 103
Idaho 758, 653 P.2d 813 (Ct. App. 1982)). Specifically, the district court is required to notify the
applicant of its reasons for dismissing sua sponte and give the applicant twenty days to dispute
those reasons in reply. I.C. § 19-4906(b).
Here, the district court summarily dismissed Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim
on the same grounds advanced by the State in its motion. In its motion, the State contended that

12
Best’s “ineffective assistance of counsel claims fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact
regarding both deficient performance of trial counsel and resulting prejudice.” Rather than
contesting the State’s assertion, Best stipulated to the district court making a decision on the State’s
motion without submitting a response brief and without oral argument. And unlike the trial-error
claims—which were nowhere mentioned in the State’s motion—it should have been clear to Best
from the face of the motion and supporting memorandum that his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim risked dismissal absent any additional evidentiary effort to counter the State’s motion for
summary dismissal.
Nonetheless, Best asserts error in the district court’s dismissal because, in his view, the
State’s motion “addressed only three of [his] ineffective assistance of counsel claims” yet the
district court dismissed “all” of them. We reject the premise of this argument, which appears to
conflate a claim with the factual allegations supporting it. In reality, Best advanced a single claim
of ineffective assistance of counsel as grounds to invalidate the judgment of conviction. To support
that claim, he marshaled a number of factual allegations relating to his trial counsel’s performance.
Best reasons that because the State’s motion did not address each of those supporting allegations,
the district court’s dismissal was effectively sua sponte and, therefore, should have been preceded
by section 19-4906(b)’s reason-giving and twenty-day response period. This argument distorts our
caselaw. We have never held that a district court’s dismissal of a post-conviction claim constitutes
a sua sponte dismissal when the State fails to address every factual allegation supporting the claim.
Our cases instead reflect a more general concern that the “grounds” or “reasons” for dismissal are
not “so different in kind” from the arguments advanced in the State’s motion. Workman v. State,
144 Idaho 518, 524, 164 P.3d 798, 804 (2007); see Saykhamchone, 127 Idaho at 322, 900 P.2d at
798.
Even viewed as a sufficiency-of-notice challenge, Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b)(1)
requires only “reasonable particularity” sufficient to ensure the applicant “cannot assert surprise
or prejudice.” DeRushé v. State, 146 Idaho 599, 601, 200 P.3d 1148, 1150 (2009). It does not
require the State to exhaustively address each factual allegation offered in support of a post-
conviction claim to provide an applicant with sufficient notice. See id. (“If the ground for summary
disposition is that there is no admissible evidence on an essential element of a claim, reasonable
particularity only requires pointing that out.”). So long as the district court’s reasons for granting

13
the State’s motion for summary dismissal are the same as those advanced with reasonable
particularity in the State’s motion, no viable lack-of-notice or sufficiency-of-notice claim arises.
The State urged summary dismissal of Best’s petition by arguing that he “fail[ed] to raise
a genuine issue of material fact” on the essential elements of an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim. In ruling on the State’s motion, the district court concluded that Best’s assertions were
“clearly disproven by the record in the criminal action” and that his claim was broadly
“unsupported by admissible evidence.” To be sure, the district court conducted a more thorough
analysis of the evidentiary deficiencies in Best’s petition, but that does not mean the “grounds” or
“reasons” for granting summary dismissal were inconsistent with the State’s position. Requiring
the State to explain why each factual allegation lacked evidentiary support would go well beyond
what was necessary to provide that notice. When the State filed its motion, Best was on notice that
he needed to shore up at least one of his factual allegations with additional evidence to demonstrate
deficient performance and prejudice. At a minimum, Best could have argued that the evidence he
submitted raised a genuine issue of material fact. Instead, he did neither.
Accordingly, we hold that the State’s failure to address every factual allegation advanced
in support of a particular post-conviction claim does not necessarily render the district court’s
ruling a sua sponte dismissal when the court ultimately grants the State’s motion for summary
dismissal on that claim. To avoid acting on its own initiative, the district court need only apply the
State’s reasoning for dismissal; its decision to discuss that reasoning more thoroughly than the
State did does not create a risk of unfair surprise or prejudice to the applicant. We therefore affirm
the district court’s summary dismissal of Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
IV. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons and authorities, we reverse the district court’s summary
dismissal of Best’s trial-error claims and remand with instructions to provide Best the twenty-day
response period required by Idaho Code section 19-4906(b). We affirm the summary dismissal of
Best’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Chief Justice BEVAN, and Justices MOELLER, ZAHN and MEYER CONCUR.

14