Court Opinion

ID: 9546910
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:37:50.138147+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:01.524246
License: Public Domain

' McQUADE, Justice
(dissenting) :
The order of the district court in this case, though not final by its own terms, was treated as such by the state as well as the applicant. The provisions of I.C. § 19-4906 (b) give the applicant twenty days to present new matter to the court if he is able to do so. Since the applicant appealed within that time, the order should be viewed as becoming final as of the date of the appeal, for the applicant thereby indicated that he would not present new facts. In any case, the record could have been augmented by an order of the district court making the judgment final.1
“A liberal allowance of appeals seems desirable since it will foster uniform limits on the exercise of discretion by trial courts and uniform interpretation of the scope of collateral attack under the act.” 2 “Final disposition of applications should be made at the earliest stage consistent with the purpose of deciding claims on their underlying merits rather than on formal or technical grounds.3 ”

. Supreme Court rule 37; Hamblen v. Goff, 90 Idaho 180, 181, 409 P.2d 429 (1965).

. Note, The Uniform Post-Conviction Procedure Act, 69 Harv.L.Rev. 1289, 1300 (1956).

.A.B.A. Minimum Standards Relating to Post-Conviction Remedies § 4.1(f) (Tentative Draft 1967).