Legal Opinion

Brooks v. State

Idaho Court of Appeals

Decided June 28, 1985No. 15282PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BURNETT, Judge.

Albert Allen Brooks has applied for post-conviction relief from a judgment of conviction entered upon his plea of guilty to the charge of rape. He contends that his guilty plea was not voluntary and that I.C. § 20-223, which prescribes a minimum period of confinement prior to parole eligibility, represents an unconstitutional bill of attainder. The district court summarily disposed of Brooks’ application under I.C. § 19-4906. This appeal followed. We affirm.

The bill of attainder issue requires no discussion here. A similar constitutional attack upon I.C. § 20-223 recently was…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. State v. ToohillIdaho Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Warden v. MarreroSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. State v. ColyerIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Vincent Hunter v. Walter T. Fogg, Superintendent of Eastern Correctional FacilityCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Hayes v. StateIdaho Court of Appeals · 2008
  2. Carrillo v. BOISE TIRE CO., INC.Idaho Supreme Court · 2012
  3. State v. MauroIdaho Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Ray v. StateIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. RamirezIdaho Court of Appeals · 1991

21 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