Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-4215 (2026)

Relief available for loss of good time credits. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Relief available for loss of good time credits. 

(1) If the court finds that an in-state prisoner has lost good time credits without constitutionally sufficient due process, the court may order a rehearing by the correctional facility authority.

(2)  Any court order requiring rehearing shall specify:
(a)  How due process was constitutionally insufficient and direct that the insufficiency be cured; and
(b)  Provide that the officials of the correctional facility shall have not less than thirty (30) days in which to convene the rehearing.
(3)  The correctional facility authority shall have the responsibility for the recalculation and restoration of good time credits. If good time credits are restored to the petitioner as a result of the rehearing, and restoration of good time credits entitles the petitioner to release, he shall be so released.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1965–1977 · leading case: Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stockwell v. State, 573 P.2d 116 (Idaho 1977). · cites it 8× “[2] Seven different grounds for discharging a prisoner in custody are found in I.C. § 19-4215, and Judge Hargraves would have been justified in finding several of them applicable.”
Carey v. State, 429 P.2d 836 (Idaho 1967). · cites it 4× “Thus, appellant claims, the record is absolutely inconsistent with and cannot support a preliminary finding of sufficient evidence to hold him to answer a charge of deliberate and premeditated murder.”
Stokes v. State, 411 P.2d 392 (Idaho 1966). · cites it 4× “surrounding the alleged offense, and particularly a news story that appellant had had a woman locked in a potato cellar. Appellant claims he requested his counsel to obtain a change of venue by reason of these publications, and because he believed that if his case would be…”
State v. O'BRYAN, 531 P.2d 1193 (Idaho 1975). · cites it 2× “§ 37-2732 is not in compliance with Section 16, Article 3 of the Idaho Constitution and is constitutionally void.”
Application of Carpenter, 401 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 4× “§ 19-4215,) which provides: “If it appears on the return of the writ that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process from any court of this state, or judge or officer thereof, such prisoner may be discharged in any of the following cases, subject to the restriction of the…”
O'Neill v. State, 452 P.2d 989 (Idaho 1969). · cites it 2× “Secondly he contends that the legally admissible evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish that a crime had been committed and probable cause to believe that he committed it.”
State v. Bauman, 406 P.2d 810 (Idaho 1965). · cites it 2× “Codes [now I.C. § 19-4215], referring to the writ of habeas corpus, provides: ‘If it appears on a return of the writ that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process from any court of this state, or judge or officer thereof, such prisoner, may be discharged in any of the…”
— Idaho Code § 19-4215(2) — 1 case
Application of Carpenter, 401 P.2d 800 (Idaho 1965). “§ 19-4215,) which provides: “If it appears on the return of the writ that the prisoner is in custody by virtue of process from any court of this state, or judge or officer thereof, such prisoner may be discharged in any of the following cases, subject to the restriction of the…”
— Idaho Code § 19-4215(7) — 3 cases
Carey v. State, 429 P.2d 836 (Idaho 1967). “Thus, appellant claims, the record is absolutely inconsistent with and cannot support a preliminary finding of sufficient evidence to hold him to answer a charge of deliberate and premeditated murder.”
State v. O'BRYAN, 531 P.2d 1193 (Idaho 1975). “§ 37-2732 is not in compliance with Section 16, Article 3 of the Idaho Constitution and is constitutionally void.”
O'Neill v. State, 452 P.2d 989 (Idaho 1969). “Secondly he contends that the legally admissible evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to establish that a crime had been committed and probable cause to believe that he committed it.”
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.