Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020 (2026)
Limitations on applications for 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. 12.72.020. Limitations on applications for post-conviction relief.
(a) A claim may not be brought under AS 12.72.010 or the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure if
(1) the claim is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial or on the ground that the sentence is excessive;
(2) the claim was, or could have been but was not, raised in a direct appeal from the proceeding that resulted in the conviction;
(3) the later of the following dates has passed, except that if the applicant claims that the sentence was illegal there is no time limit on the claim:
(A) if the claim relates to a conviction, 18 months after the entry of the judgment of the conviction or, if the conviction was appealed, one year after the court's decision is final under the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure;
(B) if the claim relates to a court revocation of probation, 18 months after the entry of the court order revoking probation or, if the order revoking probation was appealed, one year after the court's decision is final under the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure;
(4) one year or more has elapsed from the final administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections that is being collaterally attacked;
(5) the claim was decided on its merits or on procedural grounds in any previous proceeding; or
(6) a previous application for post-conviction relief has been filed under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(b) Notwithstanding (a)(3) and (4) of this section, a court may hear a claim
(1) if the applicant establishes due diligence in presenting the claim and sets out facts supported by admissible evidence establishing that the applicant
(A) suffered from a physical disability or from a mental disease or defect that precluded the timely assertion of the claim; or
(B) was physically prevented by an agent of the state from filing a timely claim;
(2) based on newly discovered evidence if the applicant establishes due diligence in presenting the claim and sets out facts supported by evidence that is admissible and
(A) was not known within
(i) 18 months after entry of the judgment of conviction if the claim relates to a conviction;
(ii) 18 months after entry of a court order revoking probation if the claim relates to a court's revocation of probation; or
(iii) one year after an administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections is final if the claim relates to the administrative decision;
(B) is not cumulative to the evidence presented at trial;
(C) is not impeachment evidence; and
(D) establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is innocent.
(c) Notwithstanding (a)(6) of this section, a court may hear a claim based on a final administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections if
(1) the claim was not and could not have been challenged in a previous application for post-conviction relief filed under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
(2) a previous application for post-conviction relief relating to the administrative decision has not been filed under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(d) The court may not consider a substantive claim in an application brought under AS 12.72.010 or the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure until the court has first determined that
(1) the application is timely; and
(2) except for an application described in AS 12.72.025 or allowed under (c) of this section, no previous application has been filed.
(a) A claim may not be brought under AS 12.72.010 or the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure if
(1) the claim is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial or on the ground that the sentence is excessive;
(2) the claim was, or could have been but was not, raised in a direct appeal from the proceeding that resulted in the conviction;
(3) the later of the following dates has passed, except that if the applicant claims that the sentence was illegal there is no time limit on the claim:
(A) if the claim relates to a conviction, 18 months after the entry of the judgment of the conviction or, if the conviction was appealed, one year after the court's decision is final under the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure;
(B) if the claim relates to a court revocation of probation, 18 months after the entry of the court order revoking probation or, if the order revoking probation was appealed, one year after the court's decision is final under the Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure;
(4) one year or more has elapsed from the final administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections that is being collaterally attacked;
(5) the claim was decided on its merits or on procedural grounds in any previous proceeding; or
(6) a previous application for post-conviction relief has been filed under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(b) Notwithstanding (a)(3) and (4) of this section, a court may hear a claim
(1) if the applicant establishes due diligence in presenting the claim and sets out facts supported by admissible evidence establishing that the applicant
(A) suffered from a physical disability or from a mental disease or defect that precluded the timely assertion of the claim; or
(B) was physically prevented by an agent of the state from filing a timely claim;
(2) based on newly discovered evidence if the applicant establishes due diligence in presenting the claim and sets out facts supported by evidence that is admissible and
(A) was not known within
(i) 18 months after entry of the judgment of conviction if the claim relates to a conviction;
(ii) 18 months after entry of a court order revoking probation if the claim relates to a court's revocation of probation; or
(iii) one year after an administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections is final if the claim relates to the administrative decision;
(B) is not cumulative to the evidence presented at trial;
(C) is not impeachment evidence; and
(D) establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the applicant is innocent.
(c) Notwithstanding (a)(6) of this section, a court may hear a claim based on a final administrative decision of the Board of Parole or the Department of Corrections if
(1) the claim was not and could not have been challenged in a previous application for post-conviction relief filed under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
(2) a previous application for post-conviction relief relating to the administrative decision has not been filed under this chapter or under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure.
(d) The court may not consider a substantive claim in an application brought under AS 12.72.010 or the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure until the court has first determined that
(1) the application is timely; and
(2) except for an application described in AS 12.72.025 or allowed under (c) of this section, no previous application has been filed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 65
cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000).
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). “, Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020 (Lexis 2004) (exempting from the statute of limitations, inter alia, any claims "based on newly discovered evidence"); Fla.”
Grinols v. State, 74 P.3d 889 (Alaska 2003). “Relying on Alaska Civil Rule 86(m), the superior court ruled that Grinols's habeas corpus petition had to be treated as a second application for post-conviction relief, As AS 12.72.020(a)(6) declares that defendants are entitled to only one application for post-conviction…”
Dist. Attorney's Off. for the Third Jud. Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009). “” Alaska Stat. §§12.72.020 (b)(2), 12.72.010(4).”
Cunningham v. Dist. Attorney's Off. for Escambia Cnty., 592 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2010). “” Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020 (b)(2). Both States impose limits on what kinds of “new facts” may be presented as a basis for postconviction relief.”
Holden v. State, 172 P.3d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “The question presented to this Court is whether, when an indigent defendant files a petition for post-conviction relief that appears to be untimely under the rules set forth in AS 12.72.020, the Alaska Constitution nevertheless guarantees the defendant a limited right to…”
McLaughlin v. State, 214 P.3d 386 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “He cannot now use the civil rules to circumvent the statute of limitations stated in AS 12.72.020. The legislature did not intend for a person to be able to evade this statute of limitations simply by claiming that Civil Rule 60(b) applies.”
Alex v. State, 210 P.3d 1225 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “In Holden, we held that "[when an indigent defendant's first petition for post-conviction relief is challenged as time-barred under AS 12.72.020, the defendant has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel when responding to that challenge".”
Flanigan v. State, 3 P.3d 372 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “" The rule provides that an application must be filed within the time limitations set out in AS 12.72.020. [3] In addition to the time limitations in AS 12.”
Terry Anthony Clayton v. State of Alaska, 535 P.3d 909 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023). “The court also noted that by applying the statute of limitations under AS 12.72.020, it had implicitly rejected any argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Clayton’s case.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(2) — 1 case
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(2)(2) — 1 case
Pomeroy v. State, 258 P.3d 125 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(2)(6) — 1 case
Thompson v. State, 13 P.3d 276 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(2)(8) — 2 cases
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(2)(8)(A) — 2 cases
Alex v. State, 210 P.3d 1225 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “In Holden, we held that "[when an indigent defendant's first petition for post-conviction relief is challenged as time-barred under AS 12.72.020, the defendant has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel when responding to that challenge".”
Geisinger v. State, 334 P.3d 1241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(2a)(8) — 1 case
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(6) — 1 case
Jeffrey Hout v. State of Alaska, Off. of the Governor, & Governor Mike Dunleavy, in an Off. Capacity, 538 P.3d 702 (Alaska 2023).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a) — 7 cases
Hertz v. State, 8 P.3d 1144 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000).
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Brockway v. State, 37 P.3d 427 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
Osborne v. State, Dep't of Corr., 332 P.3d 1286 (Alaska 2014).
Donald McDonald v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Corr., Alaska Parole Bd., & Nancy Dahlstrom, 519 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2022).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(1) — 2 cases
Wyatt v. State, 393 P.3d 442 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
Olson v. State, 383 P.3d 661 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(2) — 7 cases
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Marlon Mack v. State of Alaska, 523 P.3d 1235 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023).
Wyatt v. State, 393 P.3d 442 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017).
Mooney v. State, 167 P.3d 81 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
Gareth R. Demoski v. State of Alaska, 449 P.3d 348 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(3) — 5 cases
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
One v. State, 127 P.3d 853 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006).
Mullin v. State, 996 P.2d 737 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000).
Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(3)(8) — 2 cases
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(3)(A) — 15 cases
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
Steven Bradley Powell v. State of Alaska, 460 P.3d 787 (Alaska Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Carlson, 440 P.3d 364 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019).
One v. State, 127 P.3d 853 (Alaska Ct. App. 2006).
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(3)(B) — 1 case
Geisinger v. State, 334 P.3d 1241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(4) — 3 cases
George v. State, 307 P.3d 4 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013).
Geisinger v. State, 334 P.3d 1241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
Demitri Kardem Scott v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2026).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(5) — 3 cases
Loren J. Larson Jr. v. State of Alaska, 528 P.3d 133 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023).
Allen v. Milburn (D. Alaska 2021).
Linton v. State, 27 P.3d 782 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(6) — 9 cases
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Grinols v. State, 74 P.3d 889 (Alaska 2003). “Relying on Alaska Civil Rule 86(m), the superior court ruled that Grinols's habeas corpus petition had to be treated as a second application for post-conviction relief, As AS 12.72.020(a)(6) declares that defendants are entitled to only one application for post-conviction…”
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
Roberts v. State, 164 P.3d 664 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
Griffin v. State, 18 P.3d 71 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(8) — 4 cases
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Holden v. State, 172 P.3d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “The question presented to this Court is whether, when an indigent defendant files a petition for post-conviction relief that appears to be untimely under the rules set forth in AS 12.72.020, the Alaska Constitution nevertheless guarantees the defendant a limited right to…”
Geisinger v. State, 334 P.3d 1241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(8)(A) — 5 cases
Alex v. State, 210 P.3d 1225 (Alaska Ct. App. 2009). “In Holden, we held that "[when an indigent defendant's first petition for post-conviction relief is challenged as time-barred under AS 12.72.020, the defendant has a constitutional right to the assistance of counsel when responding to that challenge".”
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
Holden v. State, 172 P.3d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “The question presented to this Court is whether, when an indigent defendant files a petition for post-conviction relief that appears to be untimely under the rules set forth in AS 12.72.020, the Alaska Constitution nevertheless guarantees the defendant a limited right to…”
Flanigan v. State, 3 P.3d 372 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “" The rule provides that an application must be filed within the time limitations set out in AS 12.72.020. [3] In addition to the time limitations in AS 12.”
Geisinger v. State, 334 P.3d 1241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(8B)(A) — 1 case
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a)(B)(A) — 1 case
Geisinger v. State, 334 P.3d 1241 (Alaska Ct. App. 2014).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a2)(6) — 1 case
Roberts v. State, 164 P.3d 664 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a2)(8) — 1 case
Holden v. State, 172 P.3d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “The question presented to this Court is whether, when an indigent defendant files a petition for post-conviction relief that appears to be untimely under the rules set forth in AS 12.72.020, the Alaska Constitution nevertheless guarantees the defendant a limited right to…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(a2)(8)(A) — 2 cases
Holden v. State, 172 P.3d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “The question presented to this Court is whether, when an indigent defendant files a petition for post-conviction relief that appears to be untimely under the rules set forth in AS 12.72.020, the Alaska Constitution nevertheless guarantees the defendant a limited right to…”
Flanigan v. State, 3 P.3d 372 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “" The rule provides that an application must be filed within the time limitations set out in AS 12.72.020. [3] In addition to the time limitations in AS 12.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b) — 2 cases
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
Holden v. State, 172 P.3d 815 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007). “The question presented to this Court is whether, when an indigent defendant files a petition for post-conviction relief that appears to be untimely under the rules set forth in AS 12.72.020, the Alaska Constitution nevertheless guarantees the defendant a limited right to…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(1) — 2 cases
Cleveland v. State, 241 P.3d 504 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010). “AS 12.72.020 was included in House Bill 201, enacted in 1995.”
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(1)(A) — 1 case
Xavier v. State, 278 P.3d 902 (Alaska Ct. App. 2012).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(1)(B) — 2 cases
Flanigan v. State, 3 P.3d 372 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “" The rule provides that an application must be filed within the time limitations set out in AS 12.72.020. [3] In addition to the time limitations in AS 12.”
Thompson v. State, 13 P.3d 276 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(2) — 8 cases
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
Terry Anthony Clayton v. State of Alaska, 535 P.3d 909 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023). “The court also noted that by applying the statute of limitations under AS 12.72.020, it had implicitly rejected any argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Clayton’s case.”
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Osborne v. State, 110 P.3d 986 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005).
Jeffrey Hout v. State of Alaska, Off. of the Governor, & Governor Mike Dunleavy, in an Off. Capacity, 538 P.3d 702 (Alaska 2023).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
Osborne v. State, 110 P.3d 986 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(2)(A)(i) — 1 case
Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(2)(D) — 6 cases
Osborne v. State, 163 P.3d 973 (Alaska Ct. App. 2007).
Terry Anthony Clayton v. State of Alaska, 535 P.3d 909 (Alaska Ct. App. 2023). “The court also noted that by applying the statute of limitations under AS 12.72.020, it had implicitly rejected any argument that the statute was unconstitutional as applied to Clayton’s case.”
Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
Osborne v. State, 110 P.3d 986 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005).
Brian F. Hall v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(b)(6) — 1 case
Brian Hall v. State of Alaska, 446 P.3d 373 (Alaska Ct. App. 2019). “For example, AS 12.72.020(a)(3) and (a)(4) set forth statutory deadlines that must be met, and AS 12.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(c) — 2 cases
Grinols v. State, 10 P.3d 600 (Alaska Ct. App. 2000). “13 However, the legislature codified various new restrictions on post-conviction relief in AS 12.72.020. Subsection 020(a)(1) prohibits a defendant from pursuing a claim for post-conviction relief if the claim "is based on the admission or exclusion of evidence at trial".”
Hertz v. State, 81 P.3d 1011 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004).
— Alaska Stat. § 12.72.020(c)(1) — 1 case
Hertz v. State, 81 P.3d 1011 (Alaska Ct. App. 2004).
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.