Print Friendly

     Idaho Statutes

Idaho Statutes are updated to the website July 1 following the legislative session.


19-2719.  Special appellate and post-conviction procedure for capital cases — Automatic stay. The following special procedures shall be interpreted to accomplish the purpose of eliminating unnecessary delay in carrying out a valid death sentence.
(1)  When the punishment of death is imposed the time for filing an appeal shall begin to run when the death warrant is filed.
(2)  The death warrant shall not be filed until forty-two (42) days after the judgment imposing the death sentence has been filed, or, in the event a post-conviction challenge to the conviction or sentence is filed, until the order deciding such post-conviction challenge is filed.
(3)  Within forty-two (42) days of the filing of the judgment imposing the punishment of death, and before the death warrant is filed, the defendant must file any legal or factual challenge to the sentence or conviction that is known or reasonably should be known. The defendant must file any claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel within forty-two (42) days of the Idaho supreme court issuing the final remittitur in the unified appeal from which no further proceedings except issuance of a death warrant are ordered.
(4)  Any remedy available by post-conviction procedure, habeas corpus or any other provision of state law must be pursued according to the procedures set forth in this section and within the time limitations of subsection (3) of this section. The special procedures for fingerprint or forensic DNA testing set forth in sections 19-4901(a)(6) and 19-4902(b) through (g), Idaho Code, are fully applicable in capital cases and are subject to the procedures set forth in this section, and must be pursued through a petition filed within the time limitations of subsection (3) of this section or by July 1, 2002, whichever is later.
(5)  If the defendant fails to apply for relief as provided in this section and within the time limits specified, he shall be deemed to have waived such claims for relief as were known, or reasonably should have been known. The courts of Idaho shall have no power to consider any such claims for relief as have been so waived or grant any such relief.
(a)  An allegation that a successive post-conviction petition may be heard because of the applicability of the exception herein for issues that were not known or could not reasonably have been known shall not be considered unless the applicant shows the existence of such issues by (i) a precise statement of the issue or issues asserted together with (ii) material facts stated under oath or affirmation by credible persons with first hand knowledge that would support the issue or issues asserted. A pleading that fails to make a showing of excepted issues supported by material facts, or which is not credible, must be summarily dismissed.
(b)  A successive post-conviction pleading asserting the exception shall be deemed facially insufficient to the extent it alleges matters that are cumulative or impeaching or would not, even if the allegations were true, cast doubt on the reliability of the conviction or sentence.
(c)  A successive post-conviction pleading asserting the exception shall be deemed facially insufficient to the extent it seeks retroactive application of new rules of law.
(6)  In the event the defendant desires to appeal from any post-conviction order entered pursuant to this section, his appeal must be part of any appeal taken from the conviction or sentence. All issues relating to conviction, sentence and post-conviction challenge shall be considered in the same appellate proceeding.
(7)  If post-conviction challenge is made under this section, questions raised thereby shall be heard and decided by the district court within ninety (90) days of the filing of any motion or petition for relief timely filed as provided by this section. The court shall give first priority to capital cases. In the event the district court fails to act within the time specified, the supreme court of Idaho shall, on its own motion or the motion of any party, order the court to proceed forthwith, or if appropriate, reassign the case to another judge. When the supreme court intervenes as provided, it shall set a reasonable time limit for disposition of the issues before the district court.
(8)  The time limit provided in subsection (7) of this section for disposition of post-conviction claims may be extended only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances which would make it impossible to fairly consider defendant’s claims in the time provided. Such showing must be made under oath and the district court’s finding that extraordinary circumstances exist for extending the time shall be in writing and shall be immediately reported to the supreme court, which shall at once independently consider the sufficiency of the circumstances shown and determine whether an extension of time is warranted.
(9)  When a judgment imposing the penalty of death is filed, the clerk and the reporter shall begin preparation of the transcripts of the trial, and other proceedings, and the clerk’s transcript.
(10) When the procedures specified in this section and section 19-2827, Idaho Code, have been carried out and a remittitur issued, and an execution date set as provided by law, the defendant shall be deemed to have exhausted all state remedies.
(11) Any successive petition for post-conviction relief not within the exception of subsection (5) of this section shall be dismissed summarily. Notwithstanding any other statute or rule, the order of dismissal shall not be subject to any motion to alter, amend or reconsider. Such order shall not be subject to any requirement for the giving of notice of the court’s intent to dismiss. The order of dismissal shall not be appealable.
(12) A stay of execution while the special appellate procedures specified herein are followed and during the pendency of automatic review of death sentences shall be automatically entered by the clerk of the supreme court at the time the district court transmits to the supreme court the report required by section 19-2827, Idaho Code. If the sentence is upheld, the clerk shall dissolve such stay when the remittitur is filed. Thereafter the district court shall set a new execution date.

[19-2719, added 1984, ch. 159, sec. 7, p. 388; am. 1995, ch. 140, sec. 3, p. 596; am. 2001, ch. 317, sec. 1, p. 1127; am. 2010, ch. 135, sec. 1, p. 287; am. 2015, ch. 245, sec. 1, p. 1040.]

How current is this law?