Legal Opinion

Grinols v. State

Alaska Supreme Court

Decided August 1, 2003No. S-9939, S-9940PublishedCited by 42 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

CARPENETI, Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

We accepted two questions on a petition for hearing regarding the ability of a defendant to challenge the effectiveness of post-conviction relief counsel: (1) Whether the due process clause of the Alaska Constitution requires that a criminal defendant be able to challenge the effectiveness of counsel in a post-conviction proceeding, and (2) if so, whether due process requires the appointment of counsel in that proceeding. Because the due process clause does require that a defendant be able to challenge the effectiveness of counsel, we affirm the…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  3. Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  4. McMann v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987

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

3Cited by42 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. FordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
  2. Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Rippo v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2018
  4. In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jacob S.Alaska Supreme Court · 2016
  5. State v. SmartAlaska Supreme Court · 2009

37 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