Idaho Code § 19-4907
Hearing — Evidence — Order — Presence of applicant.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Hearing — Evidence — Order — Presence of applicant.
(a) The application shall be heard in, and before any judge of, the court in which the conviction took place. A record of the proceedings shall be made and preserved. All rules and statutes applicable in civil proceedings including pre-trial, discovery and appellate procedures are available to the parties. The court may receive proof by affidavits, depositions, oral testimony, or other evidence and may order the applicant brought before it for the hearing. If the court finds in favor of the applicant, it shall enter an appropriate order with respect to the conviction or sentence in the former proceedings, and any supplementary orders as to rearraignment, retrial, custody, bail, discharge, correction of sentence, or other matters that may be necessary and proper. The court shall make specific findings of fact, and state expressly its conclusions of law, relating to each issue presented. This order is a final judgment.
(b) The applicant should be produced at the hearing on a motion attacking a sentence where there are substantial issues of fact as to evidence in which he participated. The sentencing court has discretion to ascertain whether the claim is substantial before granting a full evidentiary hearing and requiring the applicant to be present.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 492
cases (40 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: State v. Azad Haji Abdullah
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah (2015)
“I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869 , 801 P.”
State v. Payne (2008)
“I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869 , 801 P.”
Gonzales v. State (2011)
“I.C. § 19-4907; Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269, 271 , 61 P.”
Murray v. State (1992)
“First, he contends that the court erred by not entering specific findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to each of the issues presented by his original application for post-convietion relief as required by I.C. § 19-4907(a). 2 Next, he questions whether the court’s…”
State v. Bearshield (1983)
“I.C. § 19-4907. If appellant felt he could not obtain a fair hearing before the same judge, his remedy was to disqualify the judge.”
State v. Wolfe (1978)
“See I.C. § 19-4907. So really nothing will have been gained by the Ditmars-Wolfe procedure, and in fact the whole process may be lengthened even more because of it.”
Richard Myers Caldwell v. State (2015)
“After the hearing, the district court dismissed the remainder of Caldwell’s claims; however, the district court again did not specifically address either the failure to file an appeal or Eighth Amendment claim.”
Rome v. State (2018)
“3d 1066 , 1068 (2009) ; I.C. § 19-4907(a) ("All rules and statutes applicable in civil proceedings including pre-trial, discovery and appellate procedures are available to the parties.”
Hassett v. State (1995)
“I.C. § 19-4907; Russell v. State, 118 Idaho 65, 67 , 794 P.”
Maxfield v. State (1985)
“Idaho Code § 19-4907 (a) provides in part: “If the court finds in favor of the applicant, it shall enter an appropriate order with respect to the conviction or sentence in the former proceedings.”
Loveland v. State (2005)
“I.C. § 19-4907; Russell v. State, 118 Idaho 65, 67 , 794 P.”
DeRushé v. State (2009)
“2d 783, 790 (1995); I.C. § 19-4907(a), a motion for summary disposition must “state with particularity the grounds therefor.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4907(a) — 30 cases
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah (2015)
“I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869 , 801 P.”
Murray v. State (1992)
“First, he contends that the court erred by not entering specific findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to each of the issues presented by his original application for post-convietion relief as required by I.C. § 19-4907(a). 2 Next, he questions whether the court’s…”
Rome v. State (2018)
“3d 1066 , 1068 (2009) ; I.C. § 19-4907(a) ("All rules and statutes applicable in civil proceedings including pre-trial, discovery and appellate procedures are available to the parties.”
DeRushé v. State (2009)
“2d 783, 790 (1995); I.C. § 19-4907(a), a motion for summary disposition must “state with particularity the grounds therefor.”
Maxfield v. State (1985)
“Idaho Code § 19-4907 (a) provides in part: “If the court finds in favor of the applicant, it shall enter an appropriate order with respect to the conviction or sentence in the former proceedings.”
— Idaho Code § 19-4907(b) — 6 cases
Walker v. State (1968)
State v. Christensen (1981)
Deford v. State (1983)
Ozuna, Jr. v. State (2018)
Lopez v. State (1989)
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.