Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-4907 (2026)

Hearing — Evidence — Order — Presence of applicant. 

✓ current as of May 2026
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, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 10× “I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869 , 801 P.”
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869 , 801 P.”
Gonzales v. State, 254 P.3d 69 (Idaho Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 19-4907; Goodwin v. State, 138 Idaho 269, 271 , 61 P.”
Murray v. State, 828 P.2d 1323 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 4× “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, 662 P.2d 548 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 4× “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, 582 P.2d 728 (Idaho 1978). · cites it 4× “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, 358 P.3d 794 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “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, 431 P.3d 242 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 4× “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, 900 P.2d 221 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 19-4907; Russell v. State, 118 Idaho 65, 67 , 794 P.”
Maxfield v. State, 700 P.2d 115 (Idaho Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “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, 120 P.3d 751 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “I.C. § 19-4907; Russell v. State, 118 Idaho 65, 67 , 794 P.”
DeRushé v. State, 200 P.3d 1148 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 2× “2d 783, 790 (1995); I.C. § 19-4907(a), a motion for summary disposition must “state with particularity the grounds therefor.”
Show all 492 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 19-4907(a) — 30 cases
State v. Azad Haji Abdullah, 348 P.3d 1 (Idaho 2015). “I.C. § 19-4907; Stuart v. State, 118 Idaho 865, 869 , 801 P.”
Murray v. State, 828 P.2d 1323 (Idaho Ct. App. 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, 431 P.3d 242 (Idaho 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, 200 P.3d 1148 (Idaho 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, 700 P.2d 115 (Idaho Ct. App. 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, 446 P.2d 886 (Idaho 1968).
State v. Christensen, 632 P.2d 676 (Idaho 1981).
Deford v. State, 673 P.2d 1059 (Idaho 1983).
Ozuna, Jr. v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2018).
Lopez v. State, 779 P.2d 19 (Idaho Ct. App. 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.