Grinols v. State
Alaska Supreme Court
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
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Gideon v. WainwrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- McMann v. RichardsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Pennsylvania v. FinleySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Commonwealth v. FordSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2012
- Wetherhorn v. Alaska Psychiatric InstituteAlaska Supreme Court · 2007
- Rippo v. StateNevada Supreme Court · 2018
- In Re the Necessity for the Hospitalization of Jacob S.Alaska Supreme Court · 2016
- State v. SmartAlaska Supreme Court · 2009
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.