Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 19-4908 (2026)

Waiver of or failure to assert claims.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Waiver of or failure to assert claims.

All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this act must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application. Any ground finally adjudicated or not so raised, or knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence or in any other proceeding the applicant has taken to secure relief may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original, supplemental, or amended application.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 162 cases (24 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Alisha Ann Murphy v. State, 327 P.3d 365 (Idaho 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Alisha Ann Murphy v. State, 327 P.3d 365 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 22× “2d 955 (1981), ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel constituted sufficient reason to bring a successive petition under I.C. § 19-4908. The Court of Appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, concluding that the district court properly dismissed three out of the…”

Palmer v. Dermitt, 635 P.2d 955 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 16× “I.C. § 19-4908 provides that "All grounds for relief available to an applicant under this act must be raised in his original, supplemental or amended application.”

King v. State, 757 P.2d 705 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 28× “Idaho Code § 19-4908 precludes subsequent applications unless "the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original .”

Hernandez v. State, 992 P.2d 789 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 20× “In his motion for leave to file a successive post-conviction application, Hernandez argued that leave should be granted pursuant to I.C. § 19-4908, asserting that counsel in the initial post-conviction proceeding was ineffective.”

Charboneau v. State, 174 P.3d 870 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 6× “Idaho Code § 19-4908 provides in part that any ground asserted in a subsequent post-conviction petition which was not previously raised, “may not be the basis for a subsequent application, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not…”

State v. Rhoades, 820 P.2d 665 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 12× “We held that pursuant to I.C. § 19-4908, the second petition was not barred.”

Sarah Marie Johnson v. State, 395 P.3d 1246 (Idaho 2017). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 19-4908. An analysis of “sufficient reason” “must necessarily include an analysis of whether the claims being made were asserted within a reasonable period of time.”

McKinney v. State, 992 P.2d 144 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 10× “” I.C. § 19-4908. In capital cases, a successive petition is allowed only where the petitioner can demonstrate that the issues raised were not known or could not reasonably have been known within the 42-day time frame.”

Wally Kay Schultz v. State, 362 P.3d 561 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 22× “The court concluded that the successive petition was barred by I.C. § 19-4908, and that Schultz’s argument that ineffective assistance of his initial post-conviction counsel justified the filing of the successive petition was precluded by the recent Idaho Supreme Court decision…”

Dale Carter Shackelford v. State, 372 P.3d 372 (Idaho 2016). · cites it 8× “A subsequent claim on this issue is likely to be barred by Idaho Code section 19-4908. That section requires a petitioner to raise all grounds for relief in an original, supplemental, or amended application, and it provides that failure to do so results in waiver unless there is…”

Robert Terry Johnson v. State, 353 P.3d 1086 (Idaho Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 16× “” Idaho Code § 19-4908 . A court considering whether there is sufficient reason for filing the claim in a successive petition must consider whether the claim was asserted within a reasonable time.”

Baker v. State, 128 P.3d 948 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “I.C. § 19-4908. The language of Section 19-4908 prohibits successive applications in those cases where the applicant “knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently” waived the grounds for relief sought in the successive application or offers no “sufficient reason” for omitting those…”

Show all 162 citing cases →

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.