Court hears arguments for post-conviction relief

A Bonner County judge has taken under advisement a Bonner County man's petition for post-conviction relief in a 2016 vehicular manslaughter case.

In the May 6 hearing, Peter Franklin Goullette testified he told his counsel he wanted to appeal after receiving a 10-year sentence for vehicular manslaughter.

Goullette entered an Alford plea to the felony manslaughter charge, which meant that he admitted no wrongdoing in the case, but conceded that a jury could have found him guilty of the offense if the case went to trial.

However, his former counsel testified Goullette was in shock after the sentence and is positive he never told him to file an appeal.

Goullette, 27, is serving a 10-year prison term for a 2016 collision on McGhee Road which killed pedestrian Katherine Stelzer and injured Zualita Updike, both of whom were walking along the road during a lunch break from Litehouse Foods.

Goullette, acting as his own counsel, filed a petition for post-conviction relief in 1st District Court. Goullette argued in the civil filing that he received ineffective assistance from counsel because his attorney did not file a direct appeal in the criminal case despite his request to do so.

The Idaho Court of Appeals remanded the petition back to 1st District Court for further proceedings, ruling it had been dismissed on flawed reasoning that his trial counsel's failure to file an appeal was a strategic or tactical move, according to a five-page opinion released on March 5.

The state moved to summarily dismiss the relief petition, arguing that Goullette forfeited his opportunity to seek post-conviction relief because he never sought an appellate review of the matter. Goullette also failed to allege sufficient grounds to sustain the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, according to court documents.

Judge Barbara Buchanan granted the state's motion, finding that decision by Goullette's attorney not to file an appeal was a strategic decision which did not prejudice him.

On appeal, Goullette argued that he was entitled to relief as a matter of law. The state agreed the trial court's decision to dismiss was erroneous, but argued the appeals court could affirm the ruling because Goullette did not specify when he made the appeal request, court records indicate.

Goullette countered that the the appeals court could not affirm the lower court's ruling because the state's argument was not raised or decided in district court.