post-conviction evidentiary hearing (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

post-conviction evidentiary hearing in Idaho

11 Idaho opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2024 3 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
McKinney v. Stategreen
idaho · 1999 · cited in 5 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2000–2013
2 sentences

2013“To justify a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must make a factual showing based on admissible evidence.” Sivak v. State, 134 Idaho 641, 646 , 8 P.3d 636, 641 (2000) (citing McKinney v. State, 133 Idaho 695, 700 , 992 P.2d 144, 149 (1999)).

2013“To justify a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must make a factual showing based on admissible evidence.” Sivak v. State, 134 Idaho 641, 646 , 8 P.3d 636, 641 (2000) (citing McKinney v. State, 133 Idaho 695, 700 , 992 P.2d 144, 149 (1999)).

45
State v. Timothy Alan Dunlapgreen
idaho · 2013 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 391 , 313 P.3d 1, 48 (2013) (citation omitted).

2024State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345, 391 , 313 P.3d 1, 48 (2013) (citation omitted).

22
Sivak v. Stategreen
idaho · 2000 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013“To justify a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must make a factual showing based on admissible evidence.” Sivak v. State, 134 Idaho 641, 646 , 8 P.3d 636, 641 (2000) (citing McKinney v. State, 133 Idaho 695, 700 , 992 P.2d 144, 149 (1999)).

2013“To justify a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner must make a factual showing based on admissible evidence.” Sivak v. State, 134 Idaho 641, 646 , 8 P.3d 636, 641 (2000) (citing McKinney v. State, 133 Idaho 695, 700 , 992 P.2d 144, 149 (1999)).

22
Leavitt v. Swaingreen
idaho · 1999 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
2 sentences

2013“When a motion for a new trial is made because of juror misconduct, the district court must determine whether there has been ‘a showing that prejudice reasonably could have occurred.’” Leavitt v. Swain, 133 Idaho 624, 629 , 991 P.2d 349, 354 (1999) (citation omitted).

2013“When a motion for a new trial is made because of juror misconduct, the district court must determine whether there has been ‘a showing that prejudice reasonably could have occurred.’” Leavitt v. Swain, 133 Idaho 624, 629 , 991 P.2d 349, 354 (1999) (citation omitted).

22
Sanchez v. Aravegreen
idaho · 1991 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022See Sanchez, 120 Idaho at 322 , 815 P.2d at 1062 .

2022See Sanchez, 120 Idaho at 322 , 815 P.2d at 1062 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Larkin v. State green
idahoctapp · 1988
2 sentences

2019As this Court explained in Larkin, 115 Idaho at 73 , 764 P.2d at 440 , at a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner’s credibility, the weight to be given his or her testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are all matters solely within the province of the trial court.

2019As this Court explained in Larkin, 115 Idaho at 73 , 764 P.2d at 440 , at a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the petitioner’s credibility, the weight to be given his or her testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from the evidence are all matters solely within the province of the trial court.

12019–2019
Franks v. Delaware green
scotus · 1978
1 sentence

2018The claim litigated at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing was based on Beavers’ allegation that counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert testimony at a pretrial hearing held pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).

12018–2018
Lipps v. State green
idaho · 1971
2 sentences

1982Lipps v. State, 94 Idaho 185 , 484 P.2d 734 (1971).

1982Lipps v. State, 94 Idaho 185 , 484 P.2d 734 (1971).

11982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 19-2515 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 19-2719 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 19-4901 (4) ID § Idaho Code § 19-4903 (3) ID § Idaho Code § 19-4906 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TN 134 (1998–2026) IL 19 (1974–2025) ID 11 (1982–2024) MO 8 (1990–2024) MN 5 (1985–2014) AL 4 (1985–2009) IN 4 (2018–2019) ND 4 (1997–2014) PA 4 (1984–2015) AZ 3 (2020–2022) OK 2 (1982–1994) OH 2 (2000–2003) FL 2 (1988–2017) NV 2 (2009–2015) AK 2 (2005–2025) TX 2 (2004–2014) MS 2 (2004–2022) MD 2 (1973–1983)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check