Legal Opinion

Quinlan v. Idaho Commission for Pardons & Parole

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 29, 2003No. 29122PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

TROUT, Chief Justice.

Kenneth W. Quinlan (“Quinlan”), acting pro se, appeals from an order of the magistrate court denying his request for appointed counsel and from a summary judgment order dismissing his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. This ease raises two major issues: (1) whether there is a right to counsel in Idaho’s habeas proceedings created by statute; and (2) whether revision of the guidelines for parole reconsideration, eliminating mandatory hearings, constitutes an Ex Post Facto Clause violation. 1

I

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Quinlan is serving an indeterminate. life…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Calder v. BullSupreme Court of the United States · 1798
  2. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  3. California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Garner v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  5. Thomson v. City of LewistonIdaho Supreme Court · 2002

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Charboneau v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Ramon L. Smith v. State of IdahoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  3. Estrada v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 2006
  4. Sprinkler Irrigation Co., Inc. v. JOHN DEERE INS. COMPANY, INC.Idaho Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Workman v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 2007

27 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