Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-4902 (2026)
Commencement of proceedings — Verification — Filing — Service — DNA testing.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Commencement of proceedings — Verification — Filing — Service — DNA testing.
(a) A proceeding is commenced by filing an application verified by the applicant with the clerk of the district court in which the conviction took place. An application may be filed at any time within one (1) year from the expiration of the time for appeal or from the determination of an appeal or from the determination of a proceeding following an appeal, whichever is later. Facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant and the authenticity of all documents and exhibits included in or attached to the application must be sworn to affirmatively as true and correct. The supreme court may prescribe the form of the application and verification. The clerk shall docket the application upon its receipt and promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver a copy to the prosecuting attorney.
(b) A petitioner may, at any time, file a petition before the trial court that entered the judgment of conviction in his or her case for the performance of fingerprint or forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing on evidence that was secured in relation to the trial which resulted in his or her conviction but which was not subject to the testing that is now requested because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of trial. The clerk shall docket the application upon its receipt and promptly bring it to the attention of the court and deliver a copy to the prosecuting attorney.
(c) The petitioner must present a prima facie case that:
(1) Identity was an issue in the trial which resulted in his or her conviction; and
(2) The evidence to be tested has been subject to a chain of custody sufficient to establish that such evidence has not been substituted, tampered with, replaced or altered in any material aspect.
(d) A petitioner who pleaded guilty in the underlying case may file a petition under subsection (b) of this section.
(e) The trial court shall allow the testing under reasonable conditions designed to protect the state’s interests in the integrity of the evidence and the testing process upon a determination that:
(1) The result of the testing has the scientific potential to produce new, noncumulative evidence that would show that it is more probable than not that the petitioner is innocent; and
(2) The testing method requested would likely produce admissible results under the Idaho rules of evidence.
(f) In the event the fingerprint or forensic DNA test results demonstrate, in light of all admissible evidence, that the petitioner is not the person who committed the offense, the court shall order the appropriate relief.
(g) The cost of the forensic DNA test shall be at the petitioner’s expense, except to the extent the petitioner qualifies for the test at public expense pursuant to chapter 8, title 19, Idaho Code, in which case the fingerprint or forensic DNA test shall be performed by, and paid for by funds allocated for, Idaho state police forensic services, provided the requested method of testing or specific technology is validated by the lab, within the laboratory accreditation scope, and laboratory staff are qualified and satisfactorily performing proficiency testing in the testing method. If the laboratory does not offer the specific type of testing required, the Idaho state police shall not be required to outsource the testing or in any way pay for or reimburse any entity for the testing to be performed. For the purposes of this subsection, "validated" means the accumulation of test data within the laboratory to demonstrate that established methods and procedures perform as expected in the laboratory. The petitioner may choose an ISO/IEC 17025 or an American society of crime laboratory directors/laboratory accreditation board accredited DNA testing laboratory to perform the DNA testing. Such testing shall be at the petitioner’s expense.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 228
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Rhoades v. State, 220 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2009).
Rhoades v. State, 220 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2009). “He argues that the district court erred in finding that his claims are time-barred under I.C. § 19-4902. *249 In 1987, Rhoades entered a conditional plea of guilty for the murder and robbery of Nolan Haddon.”
Sarah Marie Johnson v. State, 395 P.3d 1246 (Idaho 2017). “Under Idaho Code section 19-4902, post-conviction testing of DNA is generally available to a petitioner when: (1) the evidence to be tested was not subject to the requested testing because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of the trial; (2) identity…”
Mellinger v. State, 740 P.2d 73 (Idaho Ct. App. 1987). “This appeal presents the question whether the five-year limitation mandated by the amendment applies to a conviction entered before the effective date of the amendment.”
Martinez v. State, 944 P.2d 127 (Idaho Ct. App. 1997). “The district court issued a notice of intent to summarily dismiss Martinez’s postconviction application on the basis that the action was barred by the one-year statute of limitation, I.”
Fox v. State, 934 P.2d 947 (Idaho Ct. App. 1997). “Fox appeals from the summary dismissal of his application for postconvietion relief, which the district court held was not filed within the statute of limitation prescribed by I.C. § 19-4902. We affirm in part and reverse in part.”
Evensiosky v. State, 30 P.3d 967 (Idaho 2001). “Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a) requires appeals be filed within forty-two (42) days of the filing of any appealable judgment, order, or decree of the district courtin this case forty-two days from the denial of the post-trial motions. Since no direct appeal was filed, the time for…”
Hooley v. State, 537 P.3d 1267 (Idaho 2023). “Schlup does not apply to state post-conviction cases. 9 The issue before this Court involves a question of law: should the Schlup gateway be made available to post-conviction petitioners outside the limits of Idaho Code section 19-4902? How this Court applies U.”
Abbott v. State, 924 P.2d 1225 (Idaho Ct. App. 1996). “Therefore, this Court will consider the petition as an application filed under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act. However, because petitioner has failed to follow the procedures found in the Act, this Court must affirm the action of the district court denying the…”
Vavold v. State, 218 P.3d 388 (Idaho 2009). “Because Vavold fails to address in his briefing to this Court the untimeliness of his petition under I.C. § 19-4902(a), we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 22, 1999, Vavold entered a plea of guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor child under…”
Hernandez v. State, 992 P.2d 789 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). “Hernandez, in his response to the district court’s notice of proposed dismissal, contended that because his successive application was filed within one year of the Supreme Court’s determination of the appeal from the summary dismissal of his initial post-conviction application,…”
Charboneau v. State, 174 P.3d 870 (Idaho 2007). “In 1993, the legislature amended this statute to impose the one year limitation (previously five years), which gave defendants like Charboneau, who were convicted prior to the amendment and were still within the five year limit, one additional year within which to file a…”
Sayas v. State, 88 P.3d 776 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003). “The state filed an answer asserting that Meza Sayas’ petition was not timely under Idaho Code § 19-4902 , as well as a motion for summary disposition seeking dismissal on that same basis.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(a) — 99 cases
Vavold v. State, 218 P.3d 388 (Idaho 2009). “Because Vavold fails to address in his briefing to this Court the untimeliness of his petition under I.C. § 19-4902(a), we affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On September 22, 1999, Vavold entered a plea of guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor child under…”
Bahr v. State, 533 P.3d 282 (Idaho 2023).
Rhoades v. State, 220 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2009). “He argues that the district court erred in finding that his claims are time-barred under I.C. § 19-4902. *249 In 1987, Rhoades entered a conditional plea of guilty for the murder and robbery of Nolan Haddon.”
Amboh v. State, 239 P.3d 448 (Idaho Ct. App. 2010).
Hooley v. State, 537 P.3d 1267 (Idaho 2023). “Schlup does not apply to state post-conviction cases. 9 The issue before this Court involves a question of law: should the Schlup gateway be made available to post-conviction petitioners outside the limits of Idaho Code section 19-4902? How this Court applies U.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(b) — 12 cases
Rhoades v. State, 220 P.3d 1066 (Idaho 2009). “He argues that the district court erred in finding that his claims are time-barred under I.C. § 19-4902. *249 In 1987, Rhoades entered a conditional plea of guilty for the murder and robbery of Nolan Haddon.”
Sarah Marie Johnson v. State, 395 P.3d 1246 (Idaho 2017). “Under Idaho Code section 19-4902, post-conviction testing of DNA is generally available to a petitioner when: (1) the evidence to be tested was not subject to the requested testing because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of the trial; (2) identity…”
Hooley v. State, 537 P.3d 1267 (Idaho 2023). “Schlup does not apply to state post-conviction cases. 9 The issue before this Court involves a question of law: should the Schlup gateway be made available to post-conviction petitioners outside the limits of Idaho Code section 19-4902? How this Court applies U.”
Fields v. State, 253 P.3d 692 (Idaho 2011).
Rhoades v. State, 220 P.3d 571 (Idaho 2009).
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(c) — 4 cases
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State, 340 P.3d 1163 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
Joshua McGiboney v. State, 370 P.3d 747 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).
Dean Allen Harrell v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
Juan Anthony Jimenez v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2015).
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(c)(1) — 2 cases
Kenneth Edward Elcock v. State of Idaho (Idaho Ct. App. 2026).
Christopher Conley Tapp v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2013).
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(e) — 6 cases
Sarah Marie Johnson v. State, 395 P.3d 1246 (Idaho 2017). “Under Idaho Code section 19-4902, post-conviction testing of DNA is generally available to a petitioner when: (1) the evidence to be tested was not subject to the requested testing because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of the trial; (2) identity…”
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State, 340 P.3d 1163 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
Gregory Nelson v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(e)(l) — 2 cases
Sarah Marie Johnson v. State, 395 P.3d 1246 (Idaho 2017). “Under Idaho Code section 19-4902, post-conviction testing of DNA is generally available to a petitioner when: (1) the evidence to be tested was not subject to the requested testing because the technology for the testing was not available at the time of the trial; (2) identity…”
Joshua McGiboney v. State, 370 P.3d 747 (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).
— Idaho Code § 19-4902(f) — 6 cases
Hooley v. State, 537 P.3d 1267 (Idaho 2023). “Schlup does not apply to state post-conviction cases. 9 The issue before this Court involves a question of law: should the Schlup gateway be made available to post-conviction petitioners outside the limits of Idaho Code section 19-4902? How this Court applies U.”
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State, 340 P.3d 1163 (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
Gregory Joseph Nelson v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
Gregory Nelson v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).
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.