Wash. Rev. Code § 10.73.110
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
[ 1989 c 395 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: State v. Schwab
State v. Schwab (2007)
“We hold that Schwab's collateral attack was timely because he did not receive notice of the time bar as RCW 10.73.110 and .120 require, but that his motion to withdraw his plea fails on the merits because his counsel was not ineffective and the trial court clearly informed him…”
In Re Personal Restraint Petition of Becker (2001)
“On August 24, 1998, after reconsideration of its April 21 decision, the superior court issued its order denying the City’s motion for stay and relief from the writ.”
Matter of Personal Restraint of Runyan (2000)
“RCW 10.73.110. The Legislature also granted petitioners, such as Kelly, a 1-year window of opportunity in which to challenge the validity of all such prior convictions, and now that window has closed.”
State v. Golden (2002)
“Golden received no notice of his right to collateral review and the time restrictions, but contends that notice was not required.”
State v. Golden (2002)
“Restraint of Becker, in which this court interprets RCW 10.73.110 as requiring notice only when a court rule also specifically requires it.”
In re the Personal Restraint of Turay (2003)
“See RAP 18.22(b). However, the rules cannot, and do not, supersede the legislature’s grant of jurisdiction in the statute to the Court of Appeals over habeas corpus matters.”
In Re Turay (2003)
“Insofar as procedures are concerned, the Rules of Appellate Procedure supersede any conflicting procedures set out in the statute. See RAP 18.22(b). However, the rules cannot, and do not, supersede the legislature's grant of jurisdiction in the statute to the Court of Appeals…”
State v. Robinson (2001)
“” The second amended information included an allegation that Robinson committed an offense with “a knife having a blade longer than three inchest.”
State v. Robinson (2001)
“]" In addition, Robinson received notice in the judgment and sentence, as required by RCW 10.73.110, that any collateral attack on the judgment was subject to the limitations of RCW 10.”
In Re Carlstad (2003)
“FACTS In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Carlstad Monti Carlstad accepted a plea agreement and pleaded guilty to numerous burglary charges.”
In re the Personal Restraint Well (1997)
“RCW 10.73.110. This statute was not in effect when Well was committed.”
Matter of Well (1997)
“RCW 10.73.110. This statute was not in effect when Well was committed.”
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.