Legal Opinion

In re the Personal Restraint of Quinn

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided March 8, 2010No. 60180-6-IPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDwyer, J.

¶1 Today we decide which party in a collateral attack proceeding — the petitioner or the State— *820bears the burden of establishing the timeliness of a petition for relief. A personal restraint petitioner who collaterally attacks a criminal judgment and sentence bears the overall burden of demonstrating an entitlement to relief. In the absence of an applicable exception, obtaining relief in a collateral proceeding is conditioned upon the petition’s timeliness under RCW 10.73.090, that is, within one year of the date on which the criminal judgment and sentence became final. We hold that the…

2Cases cited48 opinions

  1. North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. BosleyWashington Supreme Court · 1992
  3. State v. WardWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. In re the Personal Restraint of GoodwinWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  5. In Re the Personal Restraint of HewsWashington Supreme Court · 1983

43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Personal Restraint Petition Of Arthur Nathaniel AikenCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  2. Personal Restraint Petition Of Daniel Scott Moody, Jr.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2019
  3. State Of Washington v. Brian K. TerwillegerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2020
  4. State Of Washington v. Vichai SalyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API