Legal Opinion · Dissent

Paz v. State

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 16, 1993No. 20393Published

1DissentBistline, Justice

It is readily agreed that any claim which is known or reasonably should have been known must be raised in a petitioner’s initial petition seeking post-conviction relief. I am unable to agree with the majority’s conclusion that Paz “has failed to meet his burden under I.C. § 19-2719” to make “a prima facie showing that the issues raised were not known and could not reasonably have been known within 42 days of judgment.” At 760, 852 P.2d at 1357. Common sense compels the opposite conclusion. Accordingly, I must dissent.

Because the Court there reached the merits of the claimed ineffective…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. State v. CharboneauIdaho Supreme Court · 1989
  3. State v. BeamIdaho Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State v. RhoadesIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
  5. Smith v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1971

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

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

Powered by the Exa API