Wilson v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Matthews v. State

    122 Idaho 801 (Idaho 1992)   Cited 63 times
    Recognizing that in Idaho the post-conviction setting is the "preferred forum for bringing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel," though in limited instances such claims may be brought on direct appeal "on purported errors that arose during the trial, as shown on the record"

    Habeas corpus is available, however, to cure fundamental errors occurring at the trial which affect either the jurisdiction of the court or the validity of the judgment, even though these errors could have been raised on appeal. Wilson v. State, [ 90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966)]. Likewise, under I.C. ยง 19-4901(a)(1), post-conviction relief is available to cure unwaived constitutional errors or other fundamental errors occurring at the trial.

  2. Mitchell v. Agents of State

    670 P.2d 520 (Idaho 1983)   Cited 9 times

    HABEAS CORPUS PROCEDURE 19-4201 19-4203 19-4201 19-4202 19-4215 Ex parteAllen 31 Idaho 295 170 P. 921 In re Blades 59 Idaho 682 86 P.2d 737 Larson v. State 91 Idaho 908 435 P.2d 248 Mahaffey v. State 87 Idaho 233 392 P.2d 423 Burge v. State 90 Idaho 473 413 P.2d 451 Wilson v. State 90 Idaho 498 414 P.2d 465 King v. State 91 Idaho 97 416 P.2d 44 28 U.S.C.A. sec. 2242 Ward v. Page 424 F.2d 491 400 U.S. 917 91 S.Ct. 178 27 L.Ed.2d 157 Atkins v.State 386 F.2d 819 Martinez v. U.S. 344 F.2d 325 DENIAL OF COUNSEL

  3. Application of Downing

    652 P.2d 193 (Idaho 1982)   Cited 9 times

    Consequently, habeas corpus is not available to review errors which could have been raised on appeal, except "to cure certain errors occurring at a trial which are of such a nature as to deprive the court of jurisdiction to proceed with the cause or to render void the proceedings and judgment of conviction [or commitment] as, for example, where an accused has been denied a fundamental constitutional right." Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 501, 414 P.2d 465, 466 (1966); see Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469, 474-75, 491 P.2d 733, 738-39 (1971). Furthermore, habeas corpus is an extraordinary writ, and its use will therefore be inappropriate where other adequate remedies are available. Flores v. Lodge, 101 Idaho 533, 617 P.2d 837 (1980); Mahaffey v. State, 87 Idaho 228, 231, 392 P.2d 279, 281 (1964).

  4. Carter v. State, Dept. of Health Welfare

    652 P.2d 649 (Idaho 1982)   Cited 8 times
    Affirming the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action when the appellants had failed to appeal a judgment on the same issue

    However, where fundamental constitutional errors occur which would render the commitment proceedings and the order of commitment void, then custody may still properly be challenged in an application for a writ of habeas corpus, even though no appeal was filed. In re Downing, 103 Idaho 689, 652 P.2d 193 (1982); Smith v. State, 94 Idaho 469, 474-75, 491 P.2d 733, 738-39 (1971); Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 500-501, 414 P.2d 465, 466 (1966). In the present case, however, we are concerned only with the propriety of the district court's dismissal of appellants' declaratory judgment action.

  5. Matter of Revello

    100 Idaho 829 (Idaho 1980)   Cited 17 times

    A habeas corpus proceeding is not a substitute for an appeal or other revisory remedy. Dionne v. State, 93 Idaho 235, 459 P.2d 1017 (1969); Coffelt v. State, 92 Idaho 235, 440 P.2d 355 (1968); King v. State, 91 Idaho 97, 416 P.2d 44 (1966); Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966); Burge v. State, 90 Idaho 473, 413 P.2d 451 (1966). This Court's remarks concerning the scope of inquiry in a habeas corpus proceeding have occurred in actions brought by criminal defendants seeking to challenge the validity of their criminal convictions.

  6. Smith v. State

    94 Idaho 469 (Idaho 1971)   Cited 60 times
    Holding that Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387, is to be applied prospectively only

    In this jurisdiction as in others, the courts have uniformly adhered to this principle. E.g., Dionne v. State, supra; Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966); Stokes v. State, 90 Idaho 339, 411 P.2d 392 (1966); Cobas v. Clapp, 79 Idaho 419, 319 P.2d 475 (1957), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 941, 78 S.Ct. 785, 2 L.Ed.2d 816 (1958); 69 Harv.L.Rev., supra at 1295. As stated in Cobas v. Clapp, supra,

  7. Dionne v. State

    93 Idaho 235 (Idaho 1969)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the proper mechanism for challenging a conviction or sentence is via direct appeal or post-conviction action

    A Post Conviction Application is designed to give an applicant every opportunity to state any legitimate grounds as set forth in I.C. ยง 19-4901 for challenging the lawfulness of the proceedings which led to the judgment pronounced by the trial court, to challenge his sentence on the grounds that it has expired or that his probation, parole or conditional release was unlawfully revoked or that he is unlawfully held in custody or other restraint. Its proper use avoids repetitious and successive applications; eliminates confusion and yet protects the applicant's constitutional rights. It cannot, however, be used as a method of appealing from a judgment of conviction but neither can Habeas Corpus. King v. State, 91 Idaho 97, 416 P.2d 44 (1966); Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966); Mahaffey v. State, supra; Stokes v. State, 90 Idaho 339, 411 P.2d 392 (1966). In this case the appellant petitioned for a Writ of Habeas Corpus on the grounds that he was not clearly and competently advised of his right to counsel at his arraignment in the district court.

  8. Walker v. State

    92 Idaho 517 (Idaho 1968)   Cited 18 times
    Denying relief under Idaho Code section 19-4901 and reasoning that "Idaho has consistently held that unlawful arrest cannot be successfully raised by habeas corpus, because once the court obtained jurisdiction, it is immaterial how it was obtained."

    But for the protection of constitutional rights in a post-conviction setting or otherwise, habeas corpus must be liberally construed to effect its purpose. King v. State, 91 Idaho 97, 416 P.2d 44 (1966); Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966); Application of Carpenter, note 3, supra; Freeman v. State, 87 Idaho 170, 392 P.2d 542 (1964); Cobas v. Clapp, 79 Idaho 419, 319 P.2d 475 (1957). Walker v. Wainwright, 390 U.S. 335, 88 S.Ct. 962 (1968) at p. 963, 19 L.Ed.2d 1215: "Whatever its other functions, the great and central office of the writ of habeas corpus is to test the legality of a prisoner's current detention * * *. If, as [the petitioner] contents, [his] conviction was obtained in violation of the Constitution, then his confinement is unlawful."

  9. Coffelt v. State

    92 Idaho 235 (Idaho 1968)   Cited 5 times

    Habeas corpus is not a substitute for an appeal or other revisory remedy. Stokes v. State, 90 Idaho 339, 411 P.2d 392 (1966); Burge v. State, 90 Idaho 473, 413 P.2d 451 (1966); Wilson v. State, 90 Idaho 498, 414 P.2d 465 (1966); Cobas v. Clapp, 79 Idaho 419, 319 P.2d 475 (1957), cert. den. 356 U.S. 941, 78 S.Ct. 785, 2 L.Ed.2d 816 (1958). Appellant, however, raises one potentially significant new issue in his present petition.