Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 43976
    GREGORY JOSEPH NELSON,                          )    2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 537
    )
    Petitioner-Appellant,                    )    Filed: August 2, 2017
    )
    v.                                              )    Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
    )
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )    THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )    OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Respondent.                              )    BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
    County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
    Judgment summarily dismissing petition for post-conviction relief, affirmed.
    Gregory Joseph Nelson, Boise, pro se appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
    General, Boise, for respondent.
    ________________________________________________
    GUTIERREZ, Judge
    Gregory Joseph Nelson appeals from the district court’s judgment summarily dismissing
    his successive petition for post-conviction relief. Nelson specifically argues the district court
    erred in summarily dismissing his successive petition, denying his discovery requests, denying
    him leave of court to file a “bifurcated” petition, denying requests for counsel, and not ruling on
    a separate discovery request and a separate motion for leave to file an amended petition. For the
    reasons explained below, we affirm.
    I.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
    In 1995, a jury found Nelson guilty of kidnapping in the first degree and lewd conduct
    with a minor under the age of sixteen. The district court sentenced Nelson to concurrent fixed
    terms of life imprisonment. Nelson appealed the judgment and his sentence, and this Court
    affirmed. State v. Nelson, 
    131 Idaho 210
    , 
    953 P.2d 650
    (Ct. App. 1998).
    1
    Nelson filed his initial petition for post-conviction relief in 1999. The district court
    summarily dismissed the petition, and this Court affirmed. Nelson v. State, Docket No. 27266
    (Ct. App. Sept. 22, 2003) (unpublished). Nelson filed numerous successive petitions over the
    years that were summarily dismissed. In Nelson’s most recent successive petition at issue on
    appeal--his seventh petition--he requested STR DNA testing of the victim’s rape kit and the
    release of the victim’s DNA to see whether it matches testing results of Nelson’s underwear that
    he alleges he wore at the time of his contact with the victim. Nelson maintained the testing will
    prove his innocence because, he alleged, the victim’s DNA will not be found on Nelson’s
    underwear. Additionally, Nelson alleged the State withheld impeaching evidence pertaining to
    an FBI analyst.
    Nelson also challenges on appeal the denial of several post-petition motions.            For
    instance, he filed a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena duces tecum that he served on
    the Idaho State Police Forensic Services (ISPFS) demanding the disclosure of the DNA record
    and profile of the victim. The district court denied the motion to compel compliance and granted
    the State’s motion to quash Nelson’s subpoena. The district court reasoned that the discovery of
    the victim’s DNA would not lead to exculpatory evidence.
    Nelson filed motions for court-ordered discovery, leave of court to conduct discovery,
    leave of court to file a “bifurcated” amended petition, and leave of court to file an amended
    petition. The district court denied Nelson’s motion for court-ordered discovery because it found
    that Nelson did not show a probability that any further testing or discovery would lead to
    exculpatory evidence. Furthermore, the district court denied Nelson’s motion for leave to file a
    “bifurcated” amended petition, determining that he had not provided a sufficient reason for leave
    to file an amended petition--it was in essence identical to the original petition he filed. The
    district court implicitly denied Nelson’s motions for leave of court to conduct discovery and yet
    another leave of court to file an amended petition.
    Nelson filed two separate motions for appointment of counsel. The district court denied
    both motions because it determined Nelson’s seventh successive petition was frivolous.
    Ultimately, the district court summarily dismissed Nelson’s petition following a hearing
    on the matter, reasoning that he failed to present a prima facie case that additional testing of the
    victim’s rape kit or release of any previous DNA results of the victim would more probably than
    not prove Nelson’s innocence. Additionally, the district court determined Nelson failed to
    2
    demonstrate why his claim regarding the FBI analyst could not have been raised on direct appeal
    or in Nelson’s previous six petitions. Nelson timely appeals.
    II.
    ANALYSIS
    A.     Summary Dismissal of DNA Testing Request
    Nelson contends the district court erred in summarily dismissing his successive petition
    for post-conviction relief. A petition for post-conviction relief initiates a proceeding that is civil
    in nature. Idaho Code § 19-4907; Rhoades v. State, 
    148 Idaho 247
    , 249, 
    220 P.3d 1066
    , 1068
    (2009); State v. Bearshield, 
    104 Idaho 676
    , 678, 
    662 P.2d 548
    , 550 (1983); Murray v. State, 
    121 Idaho 918
    , 921, 
    828 P.2d 1323
    , 1326 (Ct. App. 1992). Like a plaintiff in a civil action, the
    petitioner must prove by a preponderance of evidence the allegations upon which the request for
    post-conviction relief is based. Goodwin v. State, 
    138 Idaho 269
    , 271, 
    61 P.3d 626
    , 628 (Ct.
    App. 2002). A petition for post-conviction relief differs from a complaint in an ordinary civil
    action. Dunlap v. State, 
    141 Idaho 50
    , 56, 
    106 P.3d 376
    , 382 (2004). A petition must contain
    much more than a short and plain statement of the claim that would suffice for a complaint under
    Idaho Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1). Rather, a petition for post-conviction relief must be
    verified with respect to facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner, and affidavits,
    records, or other evidence supporting its allegations must be attached or the petition must state
    why such supporting evidence is not included with the petition. I.C. § 19-4903. In other words,
    the petition must present or be accompanied by admissible evidence supporting its allegations or
    the petition will be subject to dismissal. Wolf v. State, 
    152 Idaho 64
    , 67, 
    266 P.3d 1169
    , 1172
    (Ct. App. 2011).
    Idaho Code Section 19-4906 authorizes summary dismissal of a petition for post-
    conviction relief, either pursuant to a motion by a party or upon the court’s own initiative, if it
    appears from the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions and
    agreements of fact, together with any affidavits submitted, that there is no genuine issue of
    material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. When considering
    summary dismissal, the district court must construe disputed facts in the petitioner’s favor, but
    the court is not required to accept either the petitioner’s mere conclusory allegations,
    unsupported by admissible evidence, or the petitioner’s conclusions of law. Roman v. State, 
    125 Idaho 644
    , 647, 
    873 P.2d 898
    , 901 (Ct. App. 1994); Baruth v. Gardner, 
    110 Idaho 156
    , 159, 715
    
    3 P.2d 369
    , 372 (Ct. App. 1986). Moreover, the district court, as the trier of fact, is not constrained
    to draw inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion for summary disposition; rather, the
    district court is free to arrive at the most probable inferences to be drawn from uncontroverted
    evidence. Hayes v. State, 
    146 Idaho 353
    , 355, 
    195 P.3d 712
    , 714 (Ct. App. 2008). Such
    inferences will not be disturbed on appeal if the uncontroverted evidence is sufficient to justify
    them. 
    Id. Claims may
    be summarily dismissed if the petitioner’s allegations are clearly disproven
    by the record of the criminal proceedings, if the petitioner has not presented evidence making a
    prima facie case as to each essential element of the claims, or if the petitioner’s allegations do
    not justify relief as a matter of law. Kelly v. State, 
    149 Idaho 517
    , 521, 
    236 P.3d 1277
    , 1281
    (2010); DeRushé v. State, 
    146 Idaho 599
    , 603, 
    200 P.3d 1148
    , 1152 (2009). Thus, summary
    dismissal of a claim for post-conviction relief is appropriate when the court can conclude, as a
    matter of law, that the petitioner is not entitled to relief even with all disputed facts construed in
    the petitioner’s favor. For this reason, summary dismissal of a post-conviction petition may be
    appropriate even when the State does not controvert the petitioner’s evidence. See 
    Roman, 125 Idaho at 647
    , 873 P.2d at 901.
    Conversely, if the petition, affidavits, and other evidence supporting the petition allege
    facts that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to relief, the post-conviction claim may not be
    summarily dismissed. Charboneau v. State, 
    140 Idaho 789
    , 792, 
    102 P.3d 1108
    , 1111 (2004);
    Sheahan v. State, 
    146 Idaho 101
    , 104, 
    190 P.3d 920
    , 923 (Ct. App. 2008). If a genuine issue of
    material fact is presented, an evidentiary hearing must be conducted to resolve the factual issues.
    
    Goodwin, 138 Idaho at 272
    , 61 P.3d at 629.
    On appeal from an order of summary dismissal, we apply the same standards utilized by
    the trial courts and examine whether the petitioner’s admissible evidence asserts facts which, if
    true, would entitle the petitioner to relief. Ridgley v. State, 
    148 Idaho 671
    , 675, 
    227 P.3d 925
    ,
    929 (2010); 
    Sheahan, 146 Idaho at 104
    , 190 P.3d at 923. Over questions of law, we exercise free
    review. 
    Rhoades, 148 Idaho at 250
    , 220 P.3d at 1069; Downing v. State, 
    136 Idaho 367
    , 370, 
    33 P.3d 841
    , 844 (Ct. App. 2001).
    Pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-4902(b), a petitioner may file a post-conviction petition
    seeking DNA testing on evidence that was secured in relation to the criminal trial if the evidence
    was not subjected to the requested DNA testing because the technology was not available at the
    4
    time of trial. The petitioner must present a prima facie case that identity was at issue in the trial
    and that the evidence was subject to a “chain of custody sufficient to establish that such evidence
    has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced or altered in any material aspect.” I.C. § 19-
    4902(c). The trial court must allow the testing under reasonable conditions if it determines that
    the result of the testing has the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that
    would show that it is more probable than not that the petitioner is innocent and that the testing
    method requested would likely produce admissible results.           I.C. § 19-4902(e).     The more
    probable than not standard is essentially a 51 percent standard. Bourgeois v. Murphy, 
    119 Idaho 611
    , 622, 
    809 P.2d 472
    , 483 (1991). Thus, before allowing post-conviction DNA testing, the
    trial court must make a determination that the testing results, whatever they may be, have the
    scientific potential to demonstrate that it is more than 50 percent likely the petitioner is innocent.
    In the event testing is conducted, the court shall “order the appropriate relief” if the results
    demonstrate, in light of all admissible evidence, that the petitioner is not the person who
    committed the offense. I.C. § 19-4902(f). The petitioner has the burden of establishing that
    claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Fields v. State, 
    151 Idaho 18
    , 24, 
    253 P.3d 692
    , 698
    (2011); McCoy v. State, 
    129 Idaho 70
    , 72-73, 
    921 P.2d 1194
    , 1196-97 (1996).
    Here, Nelson requested testing of the victim’s rape kit or the release of the victim’s DNA
    results in order to compare it to the DNA testing done on Nelson’s underwear that he was
    wearing at the time of his contact with the victim. Nelson alleged the victim’s DNA will not be
    found on his underwear, and therefore he is innocent. The district court concluded Nelson failed
    to present a prima facie case that additional testing of the victim’s rape kit or release of any
    previous DNA results of the victim had the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative
    evidence that would show it is more probable than not that Nelson was innocent. We agree.
    Nelson testified at the criminal trial that he never had penile contact with the victim. In his own
    affidavit attached to his seventh petition, Nelson stated he never had penile contact with the
    victim. Thus, the absence of the victim’s DNA on Nelson’s underwear does not show it is more
    probable than not that Nelson is innocent. Accordingly, the district court properly summarily
    dismissed this claim.
    B.     Discovery Requests
    Nelson maintains the district court erred in denying two of his discovery requests and in
    not ruling on a third discovery request. When a petitioner believes discovery is necessary for
    5
    acquisition of evidence to support a claim for post-conviction relief, the petitioner must obtain
    authorization from the district court to conduct discovery.          Idaho Criminal Rule 57(b);
    Raudebaugh v. State, 
    135 Idaho 602
    , 605, 
    21 P.3d 924
    , 927 (2001).                  Discovery in a
    post-conviction action is not required unless necessary to protect a petitioner’s substantial rights.
    Murphy v. State, 
    143 Idaho 139
    , 148, 
    139 P.3d 741
    , 750 (Ct. App. 2006); Griffith v. State, 
    121 Idaho 371
    , 375, 
    825 P.2d 94
    , 98 (Ct. App. 1992).            Discovery may be denied where the
    petitioner’s claims are nothing more than speculation, unsupported by any evidence.
    
    Raudebaugh, 135 Idaho at 605
    , 21 P.3d at 927. Indeed, discovery may not be used to engage in
    fishing expeditions, as post-conviction actions provide a forum for known grievances, not an
    opportunity to search for them. 
    Murphy, 143 Idaho at 148
    , 139 P.3d at 750.
    Whether to authorize discovery is a matter directed to the discretion of the court.
    
    Raudebaugh, 135 Idaho at 605
    , 21 P.3d at 927. When a trial court’s discretionary decision is
    reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the
    lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; acted within the boundaries of
    such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before
    it; and reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho
    Power Co., 
    119 Idaho 87
    , 94, 
    803 P.2d 993
    , 1000 (1991).
    1.      Subpoena duces tecum and motion to compel compliance with the subpoena
    Nelson contends the district court erred in granting the State’s motion to quash Nelson’s
    subpoena duces tecum and denying his motion to compel compliance with the subpoena. Nelson
    served a subpoena duces tecum on the ISPFS seeking the DNA record and profile of the victim.
    The district court recognized its discretionary authority in addressing the discovery request and
    determined the discovery of the victim’s DNA would not lead to exculpatory evidence.
    While Nelson argues the State’s motion to quash the subpoena was not timely filed, it is
    of no consequence because the district court’s ruling on Nelson’s motion to compel is
    dispositive. We turn to the merits of Nelson’s motion to compel compliance. Nelson argues the
    ISPFS’s compliance with the subpoena would have provided an exculpatory nexus between the
    victim’s DNA profile and the unknown minor DNA profile found on Nelson’s underwear,
    warranting a new trial. First, Nelson does not argue that such discovery is necessary to protect
    his substantial rights. Second, as previously stated, Nelson did not demonstrate the release of the
    victim’s DNA record and profile has the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative
    6
    evidence that would show it is more probable than not that Nelson is innocent. The district court
    therefore did not err in granting the State’s motion to quash the subpoena and in denying
    Nelson’s motion to compel compliance with the subpoena.
    2.      Denial of motion for court-ordered discovery
    Next, Nelson argues the district court erred in denying his motion for court-ordered
    discovery. Nelson filed the motion in order to compel the production of information pertaining
    to the State’s expert witness--a lab analyst. Nelson’s motion was filed in response to the State’s
    notice to the district court that it intended to call the lab analyst at future hearings on the State’s
    pending motions in the case, including the State’s motion for summary dismissal, in order to
    support the State’s motions. In denying Nelson’s motion, the district court determined Nelson
    failed to show a probability that the production of documents related to the expert’s testimony
    would lead to exculpatory evidence or was otherwise necessary to protect Nelson’s substantial
    rights. We agree with the district court. A review of the motion indicates Nelson failed to argue
    the discovery was necessary to protect his substantial rights. He also failed to explain how the
    discovery would lead to exculpatory evidence. Moreover, even if the district court did err, the
    error is harmless because the State never called the witness to testify at subsequent hearings.
    Therefore, the district court appropriately denied this motion for court-ordered discovery.
    3.      Failure to rule on motion for leave of court to conduct discovery
    Nelson further maintains the district court erred in not ruling on his motion for leave of
    court to conduct discovery. Nelson specifically sought the identification and testing of an item
    referenced in a law enforcement property invoice that was booked into the state lab. He filed his
    motion on December 9, 2015, and on January 20, 2016, the district court summarily dismissed
    Nelson’s petition.    The district court’s summary dismissal constitutes an implicit denial of
    Nelson’s motion for leave of court to conduct discovery. This is because “where a district court
    fails to rule on a motion, we presume the district court denied the motion.” State v. Wolfe, 
    158 Idaho 55
    , 61, 
    343 P.3d 497
    , 503 (2015). In fact, the district court specifically referenced the
    motion for leave of court to conduct discovery in its order summarily dismissing Nelson’s
    petition. Nelson, however, fails to provide argument and authority as to why the district court
    erred in denying his motion for leave of court to conduct discovery. A party waives an issue on
    appeal if either authority or argument is lacking. State v. Zichko, 
    129 Idaho 259
    , 263, 
    923 P.2d 966
    , 970 (1996). This issue is therefore waived on appeal.
    7
    C.      Leave to File Amended Post-Conviction Petitions
    Nelson contends the district court erred in denying his July motion for leave to file a
    “bifurcated petition” and in not ruling on his December motion for leave to file an amended
    petition. During a hearing, the district court denied Nelson’s motion for “leave of court to file
    bifurcated amended petition for STR DNA testing, and successive petition for post-conviction
    relief.” The district court determined there was no sufficient reason at that point in time to grant
    leave to amend the petition because the proposed petition was identical to the original petition.
    Pursuant to I.R.C.P. 15(a), once a responsive pleading has been filed a party may amend
    a pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party. Whether to grant
    leave to amend a pleading is a matter that is within the discretion of the trial court and is subject
    to reversal on appeal only for an abuse of discretion. Black Canyon Racquetball Club, Inc. v.
    Idaho Nat’l Bank, N.A., 
    119 Idaho 171
    , 175, 
    804 P.2d 900
    , 904 (1991). Reasons for which leave
    to amend may be denied include undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the
    movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendment previously allowed, undue prejudice
    to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, and futility of amendment.
    McCann v. McCann, 
    138 Idaho 228
    , 237, 
    61 P.3d 585
    , 594 (2002); Smith v. Great Basin Grain
    Co., 
    98 Idaho 266
    , 272, 
    561 P.2d 1299
    , 1305 (1977). The district court properly denied Nelson
    leave to file a “bifurcated” amended petition where the proposed “bifurcated” petition was
    identical to the original.
    Nelson also contends the district court erred in declining to rule on his subsequent
    “Motion for Leave of Court to File Amended Petition for STR DNA Testing and Successive
    Petition for Post-Conviction Relief.”     The district court referenced the motion in its order
    granting summary dismissal: “On December 9, 2015, the Petitioner then filed a Motion for
    Leave of Court to File Amended Petition for [STR] DNA Testing and Successive Petition for
    Post-Conviction Relief.” We adhere to the proposition that the district court’s order summarily
    dismissing Nelson’s petition constitutes an implicit denial of Nelson’s motion for leave to file an
    amended petition. On appeal, Nelson fails to present argument or authority as to how the district
    court erred in denying his motion for leave to file an amended petition. Accordingly, this issue is
    waived.
    8
    D.     Summary Dismissal of FBI Analyst Claim
    Nelson further alleged the State withheld impeaching evidence pertaining to the FBI
    analyst. Nelson pointed to a report from the United States Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    regarding allegations the FBI analyst made against FBI lab practices. The OIG concluded that
    while the FBI analyst justifiably raised concerns in some respects, some of his allegations were
    unsupported by facts and he utilized bad judgment in the manner in which he raised some of his
    allegations. The State obtained a portion of the report, which included some of the OIG’s
    conclusions regarding the FBI analyst. The State then e-mailed that portion of the report to
    Nelson’s trial attorney. The district court summarily dismissed this claim after determining
    Nelson failed to show why it could not have been raised on direct appeal or in any of his
    previous six petitions.
    The scope of post-conviction relief is limited. Knutsen v. State, 
    144 Idaho 433
    , 438, 
    163 P.3d 222
    , 227 (Ct. App. 2007). A petition for post-conviction relief is not a substitute for an
    appeal. I.C. § 19-4901(b). A claim or issue that was or could have been raised on appeal may
    not be considered in post-conviction proceedings. Id.; Mendiola v. State, 
    150 Idaho 345
    , 348-49,
    
    247 P.3d 210
    , 213-14 (Ct. App. 2010). Moreover, if an initial post-conviction action was timely
    filed, an inmate may file a subsequent petition outside of the one-year limitation period if the
    court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was
    inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended petition.            I.C. § 19-4908;
    Charboneau v. State, 
    144 Idaho 900
    , 904, 
    174 P.3d 870
    , 874 (2007).
    Analysis of sufficient reason permitting the filing of a successive petition includes an
    analysis of whether the claims being made were asserted within a reasonable period of time.
    
    Charboneau, 144 Idaho at 905
    , 174 P.3d at 875. Determining what is a reasonable time for
    filing a successive petition requires a case-by-case analysis. 
    Id. Therefore, the
    question here is
    whether the petitioner filed the successive petition within a reasonable period of time.
    Nelson has not shown why this claim pertaining to the FBI analyst could not have been
    raised on direct appeal. Furthermore, Nelson failed to allege sufficient reason as to why this
    claim could not have been raised in his initial petition or in any of his successive petitions before
    his most recent petition. The record reveals the State e-mailed Nelson’s trial attorney a copy of a
    portion of the OIG report in 1997. Nelson filed his first petition in 1999. Nelson did not allege
    9
    any reason as to why he waited nearly two decades to include this claim in a petition. The
    district court did not err in summarily dismissing this claim.
    E.     Motions for Appointment of Counsel
    Nelson maintains the district court erred in denying his motions for appointment of
    counsel. Nelson filed his first motion for appointment of counsel in April 2015. The district
    court found Nelson indigent, but denied the motion after it determined Nelson did not allege
    facts that raise the possibility of a valid claim and the successive petition was frivolous. Nelson
    filed a second motion for appointment of counsel in December 2015. In its order granting
    summary dismissal, the district court addressed the second motion for counsel. Again, the
    district court found that Nelson did not allege facts that raise the possibility of a valid claim. The
    district court determined the successive petition was frivolous and denied Nelson’s second
    motion for appointment of counsel.
    If a post-conviction petitioner is unable to pay for the expenses of representation, the trial
    court may appoint counsel to represent the petitioner in preparing the petition in the trial court
    and on appeal. I.C. § 19-4904. The decision to grant or deny a request for court-appointed
    counsel lies within the discretion of the district court. Grant v. State, 
    156 Idaho 598
    , 603, 
    329 P.3d 380
    , 385 (Ct. App. 2014). When a district court is presented with a request for appointed
    counsel, the court must address this request before ruling on the substantive issues in the case.
    
    Id. The district
    court abuses its discretion where it fails to determine whether a petitioner for
    post-conviction relief is entitled to court-appointed counsel before denying the petition on the
    merits. 
    Grant, 156 Idaho at 603
    , 329 P.3d at 385.
    In determining whether to appoint counsel pursuant to I.C. § 19-4904, the district court
    should determine if the petitioner is able to afford counsel and whether the situation is one in
    which counsel should be appointed to assist the petitioner. 
    Grant, 156 Idaho at 603
    , 329 P.3d at
    385. In its analysis, the district court should consider that petitions filed by a pro se petitioner
    may be conclusory and incomplete. 
    Id. Facts sufficient
    to state a claim may not be alleged
    because they do not exist or because the pro se petitioner does not know the essential elements of
    a claim. 
    Id. Some claims
    are so patently frivolous that they could not be developed into viable
    claims even with the assistance of counsel. Newman v. State, 
    140 Idaho 491
    , 493, 
    95 P.3d 642
    ,
    644 (Ct. App. 2004). However, if a petitioner alleges facts that raise the possibility of a valid
    claim, the district court should appoint counsel in order to give the petitioner an opportunity to
    10
    work with counsel and properly allege the necessary supporting facts. 
    Grant, 156 Idaho at 603
    ,
    329 P.3d at 385.
    A review of the record indicates Nelson failed to allege facts that raise the possibility of a
    valid claim. As discussed above, Nelson failed to present a prima facie case that additional
    testing of the victim’s rape kit or release of any previous DNA results of the victim would prove
    it was more probable than not that Nelson was innocent. Also, Nelson has not shown why the
    claim pertaining to the FBI analyst could not have been raised on direct appeal or in any of
    Nelson’s previous successive petitions. For these reasons, we agree with the district court’s
    determination that Nelson’s seventh successive petition is frivolous. Accordingly, the district
    court’s denial of Nelson’s motions for appointment of counsel was proper.
    III.
    CONCLUSION
    The district court did not err in summarily dismissing Nelson’s seventh successive
    petition because Nelson did not present evidence making a prima facie case as to each essential
    element of the claims regarding DNA testing. Moreover, Nelson has not shown why the claims
    pertaining to the FBI analyst could not have been raised on direct appeal or in Nelson’s previous
    successive petitions. The district court correctly denied Nelson’s discovery requests because
    Nelson did not demonstrate the release of the victim’s DNA record and profile is necessary to
    protect Nelson’s substantial rights, and Nelson failed to argue that court-ordered discovery was
    necessary to protect his substantial rights. Nelson’s motion for leave to conduct discovery and
    Nelson’s motion for leave to file an amended petition were implicitly denied with the issuance of
    the order summarily dismissing Nelson’s successive petition. Nelson waived the merits of these
    issues on appeal by not providing argument or authority. The district court properly denied
    Nelson leave to file an amended “bifurcated” petition where the proposed petition was identical
    to the original petition. Lastly, the district court properly exercised its discretion in denying
    Nelson’s motions for appointment of counsel because Nelson’s seventh successive petition was
    frivolous. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court summarily dismissing Nelson’s
    successive petition for post-conviction relief.
    Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge Pro Tem WALTERS CONCUR.
    11