Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010 (2026)
Scope of post-conviction relief
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.72.010. Scope of post-conviction relief.
A person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime may institute a proceeding for post-conviction relief if the person claims
(1) that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state;
(2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence;
(3) that a prior conviction has been set aside and the prior conviction was used as a statutorily required enhancement of the sentence imposed;
(4) that there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard by the court, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; if the person seeks post-conviction DNA testing to support a claim under this paragraph, the person's exclusive method for obtaining that testing is an application under AS 12.73;
(5) that the person's sentence has expired, or the person's probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked, or the person is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint;
(6) that the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground or alleged error previously available under the common law, statutory law, or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy;
(7) that
(A) there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, applied in the process leading to the person's conviction or sentence;
(B) the change in the law was not reasonably foreseeable by a judge or a competent attorney;
(C) it is appropriate to retroactively apply the change in law because the change requires observance of procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished; and
(D) the failure to retroactively apply the change in law would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which is established by demonstrating that, had the changed law been in effect at the time of the applicant's trial, a reasonable trier of fact would have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the applicant;
(8) that, after the imposition of sentence, the applicant seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in order to correct manifest injustice under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; or
(9) that the applicant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial or on direct appeal.
A person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime may institute a proceeding for post-conviction relief if the person claims
(1) that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state;
(2) that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence;
(3) that a prior conviction has been set aside and the prior conviction was used as a statutorily required enhancement of the sentence imposed;
(4) that there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard by the court, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; if the person seeks post-conviction DNA testing to support a claim under this paragraph, the person's exclusive method for obtaining that testing is an application under AS 12.73;
(5) that the person's sentence has expired, or the person's probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked, or the person is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint;
(6) that the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground or alleged error previously available under the common law, statutory law, or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy;
(7) that
(A) there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, applied in the process leading to the person's conviction or sentence;
(B) the change in the law was not reasonably foreseeable by a judge or a competent attorney;
(C) it is appropriate to retroactively apply the change in law because the change requires observance of procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished; and
(D) the failure to retroactively apply the change in law would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which is established by demonstrating that, had the changed law been in effect at the time of the applicant's trial, a reasonable trier of fact would have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the applicant;
(8) that, after the imposition of sentence, the applicant seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in order to correct manifest injustice under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; or
(9) that the applicant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial or on direct appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009).
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “” Alaska Stat. §12.72.010 (4) (2008). Such a claim is exempt from other wise applicable time limits if “newly discovered evidence,” pursued with due diligence, “establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is innocent.”
State v. Smart, 202 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2009). “1; and whether post-conviction relief actions are governed by the retroactivity standard in AS 12.72.010. We briefly address each of these issues in turn.”
Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney's Off. for Escambia Cnty., 592 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2010). “” Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010 (4). Both States waive otherwise applicable time limits when a claim is based on new evidence that could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence.”
Smart v. State, 146 P.3d 15 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006). “The State points out that, in 1995, the legislature amended Alaska's post-conviction relief statute, AS 12.72.010, and the corresponding court rule, Alaska Criminal Rule 35.”
David Scott Daughenbaugh v. State of Iowa, 805 N.W.2d 591 (Iowa 2011). “, Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.72.010 (West, Westlaw through Sept.”
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “" The problem facing Osborne in the present case is that the DNA testing he proposes would not yield "new evidence" for purposes of either Criminal Rule 33 or AS 12.72.010(2). Under both of these provisions, a defendant must show that the evidence was not available sooner,…”
Newton v. City of New York, 779 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2015). “Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010 (2008). A related provision stated, in relevant part: (b) .”
Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. for Fla., 679 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2012). “Florida's procedures are in many ways more favorable to a petitioner seeking DNA access than the Alaska or federal statutes, see generally Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010 et seq.; 18 U.S.”
Charles v. State, 287 P.3d 779 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “However, AS 12.72.010(7)-a portion of the statute governing the seope of post-convietion relief in Alaska-contains a different set of rules that govern the retroactivity of judicial decisions when these decisions are invoked for the purpose of collaterally attacking a criminal…”
McLaughlin v. State, 214 P.3d 386 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “" [6] Thus, AS 12.72.010 and Criminal Rule 35.1 apply to the collateral review of McLaughlin's criminal convictionCivil Rule 60(b) does not.”
Cook v. State, 312 P.3d 1072 (Alaska 2013). “We are now faced with the narrow question whether the decision in the civil appeal reversing the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment is a new fact under AS 12.72.010(4) that "requires vacation of the [criminal] conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.”
Marlon Mack v. State of Alaska, 523 P.3d 1235 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023). “]”); AS 12.72.010(4) (allowing post-conviction relief claims based on material facts not previously presented and heard); Alaska R.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(1) — 3 cases
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000).
State v. Smart, 202 P.3d 1130 (Alaska 2009). “1; and whether post-conviction relief actions are governed by the retroactivity standard in AS 12.72.010. We briefly address each of these issues in turn.”
Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(2) — 1 case
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “" The problem facing Osborne in the present case is that the DNA testing he proposes would not yield "new evidence" for purposes of either Criminal Rule 33 or AS 12.72.010(2). Under both of these provisions, a defendant must show that the evidence was not available sooner,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(3) — 1 case
Tyler v. State, 47 P.3d 1095 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(4) — 5 cases
Cook v. State, 312 P.3d 1072 (Alaska 2013). “We are now faced with the narrow question whether the decision in the civil appeal reversing the denial of the motion to set aside the default judgment is a new fact under AS 12.72.010(4) that "requires vacation of the [criminal] conviction or sentence in the interest of justice.”
Marlon Mack v. State of Alaska, 523 P.3d 1235 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023). “]”); AS 12.72.010(4) (allowing post-conviction relief claims based on material facts not previously presented and heard); Alaska R.”
Terry Anthony Clayton v. State of Alaska, 535 P.3d 909 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023).
Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
Roberts v. City of Fairbanks (D. Alaska 2024).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(5) — 1 case
Donald McDonald v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Corr., Alaska Parole Bd., & Nancy Dahlstrom, 519 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2022).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(6) — 1 case
McLaughlin v. State, 214 P.3d 386 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “" [6] Thus, AS 12.72.010 and Criminal Rule 35.1 apply to the collateral review of McLaughlin's criminal convictionCivil Rule 60(b) does not.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(7) — 1 case
Charles v. State, 287 P.3d 779 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012). “However, AS 12.72.010(7)-a portion of the statute governing the seope of post-convietion relief in Alaska-contains a different set of rules that govern the retroactivity of judicial decisions when these decisions are invoked for the purpose of collaterally attacking a criminal…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(8) — 2 cases
Peterson v. State, 988 P.2d 109 (Alaska Ct. App. 1999).
Tyler v. State, 47 P.3d 1095 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(9) — 5 cases
Marlon Mack v. State of Alaska, 523 P.3d 1235 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023). “]”); AS 12.72.010(4) (allowing post-conviction relief claims based on material facts not previously presented and heard); Alaska R.”
Thompson v. Cordle (D. Alaska 2023).
Lee v. State of Alaska (D. Alaska 2023).
Carney v. State of Alaska D.A. (D. Alaska 2024).
Carney v. State of Alaska D.A. (D. Alaska 2024).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(a) — 1 case
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “" The problem facing Osborne in the present case is that the DNA testing he proposes would not yield "new evidence" for purposes of either Criminal Rule 33 or AS 12.72.010(2). Under both of these provisions, a defendant must show that the evidence was not available sooner,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(a)(4) — 2 cases
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “" The problem facing Osborne in the present case is that the DNA testing he proposes would not yield "new evidence" for purposes of either Criminal Rule 33 or AS 12.72.010(2). Under both of these provisions, a defendant must show that the evidence was not available sooner,…”
State v. Cook, 265 P.3d 342 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.010(a)(5) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.