Alaska Stat. » Chapter 12.72
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 12.72.040 (2026)

Burden of proof in post-conviction relief proceedings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.72.040. Burden of proof in post-conviction relief proceedings.
A person applying for post-conviction relief must prove all factual assertions by clear and convincing evidence.


Chapter 73. Post-Conviction DNA Testing Procedure.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: Brown v. State, 414 P.3d 660 (Alaska 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown v. State, 414 P.3d 660 (Alaska 2018). “See AS 12.72.040 (establishing clear and convincing evidence standard of proof for all factual assertions in post-conviction relief proceedings).”
Newby v. State, 967 P.2d 1008 (Alaska Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The State responds that Celikoski has been “overruled” by the enactment of AS 12.72.040, which declares that “[a] person applying for post-conviction relief must prove all factual assertions by clear and convincing evidence.”
Vizcarra-Medina v. State, 195 P.3d 1095 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Vizcarra-Medina's post-conviction relief attorney may have reasonably concluded that the other available evidence contradicted Vizcarra-Medina's assertion, and that Vigcar-ra-Medina's claim could likely never be proved by clear and convincing evidence (the standard of proof…”
Tall v. State, 25 P.3d 704 (Alaska Ct. App. 2001). “See AS 12.72.040; Alaska R.Crim. P. 35.1(g). 24 .”
Wyatt v. State, 393 P.3d 442 (Alaska Ct. App. 2017). “1994) (“A failure to comply with the La-Vigne rule is harmful, not because that failure by itself proves that a defendant's constitutional right was abridged, but because the failure makes it harder to determine the facts underlying the defendant’s claim of constitutional…”
Donald McDonald v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Corr., Alaska Parole Bd., & Nancy Dahlstrom, 519 P.3d 345 (Alaska 2022). · cites it 2× “24 DOC persuasively asserts that “McDonald should not be permitted to circumvent the procedural requirements and burden of proof set forth in AS 12.72.040 and Criminal Rule 35.1 because he prefers his case be handled as a civil action rather than [a post-conviction relief…”
Olson v. State, 77 P.3d 15 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003). “AS 12.72.040; Alaska R.Crim. P. 35.1(g). 26 .”
Register v. State, 71 P.3d 337 (Alaska Ct. App. 2003). “Our review of Judge Smith’s decision Under Alaska Criminal Rule 11(h)(3) and AS 12.72.040, it was the Registers’ burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that they were entitled to withdraw their pleas.”
Gregory Marino v. State of Alaska (Alaska Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “The State’s first argument is derived from AS 12.72.040, a statutory provision that was also enacted in 1995.”
State v. Savo, 108 P.3d 903 (Alaska Ct. App. 2005). “AS 12.72.040. 7 . For example, in the spring of 1964, a woman named Catherine Genovese was murdered outside her home in Queens (New York); thirty-eight witnesses heard her cries and yet did nothing to summon help or to save her.”
Sidney R. Hertz v. Joe Schmidt, Jeffrey Edwards, Alaska Bd. of Paro (Alaska 2015). “030(b) (preventing discovery until the petitioner demonstrates a prima facie case for post-conviction relief); AS 12.72.040 (requiring the clear and convincing evidentiary standard in a post-conviction relief proceeding).”
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.