Opinion ID: 2512660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 24

Heading: District court's standard of review

Text: Nika contends that the district court improperly relied upon Hargrove v. State [127] as the standard for reviewing his post-conviction claims. Rather, he asserts that [s]trict pleading rules do not apply to habeas petitions. What Nika means by strict pleading rules is unclear. However, we stated in Hargrove that claims must consist of more than bare allegations and that an evidentiary hearing is mandated only when a post-conviction petitioner asserts specific factual allegations that are not belied or repelled by the record and that, if true, would entitle him to relief. [128] Hargrove is the cornerstone of post-conviction habeas review. Having reviewed Nika's petition, we conclude that the district court did not apply an improper standard of review in resolving his post-conviction petition. [129]