Legal Opinion
State v. Hurt
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided August 7, 2001No. 19263-6-IIIPublishedCited by 21 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
Under the federal “mailbox rule” pleadings are deemed “filed” when they are properly deposited in a prison mailing system. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271, 108 S. Ct. 2379, 101 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1988). The first question raised in Sidney Hurt’s collateral attack on his guilty plea is whether Washington should adopt the federal “mailbox rule” for pro se, incarcerated petitioners. We conclude that it should and do so here.
*820The next question is whether a statement on plea of guilty that informed Mr. Hurt that his community placement would be at least one year adequately informed him of the direct…
2Cases cited42 opinions
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Houston v. LackSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Evitts v. LuceySupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Donald Burns v. Willis E. Morton, Superintendent Peter Verniero, the Attorney General of the State of New JerseyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1998
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Oloth Insyxiengmay v. Richard MorganCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- State v. ShepherdCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- State v. ShepherdCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- State v. McDermondCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- In Re CarlstadWashington Supreme Court · 2003
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.