 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Higgins v. State3/29/2000
nded by the legislature in 1995. As Higgins acknowledges in his brief, it is unclear whether the current version of the rule still requires a court to give advance warning of its intent to dismiss a petition for post-conviction relief. We assume, for purposes of deciding Higgins's case, that this requirement still holds. Nevertheless, we conclude that Judge Smith was not obliged to forewarn Higgins of his intent to deny the petition for post-conviction relief.
Judge Smith did not reject Higgins's petition for procedural deficiencies. Instead, he treated all of Higgins's allegations as well-pleaded, and he decided Higgins's claims on the merits. Moreover, Higgins's petition for post-conviction relief was actually his third formulation of his claims. He initially filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, then a motion to withdraw his plea. Each time, the State responded with pleadings that asserted various procedural and legal deficiencies in Higgins's claims. Finally, at the State's request, the superior court directed Higgins to file a new petition for post-conviction relief that would represent a final statement of his claims for relief.
Each of Higgins's latter two pleadings (the pro se motion to withdraw his plea and, later, the attorney-drafted petition for post-conviction relief) were written with knowledge of the State's arguments in opposition to Higgins's prior pleadings. Indeed, in each of these pleadings, Higgins reformulated his claims and amended either his assertions of fact or his legal arguments.
Although a defendant (particularly, a pro se defendant) should be given a fair opportunity to amend or supplement a deficient petition for post-conviction relief, this does not mean that the superior court is obliged to repeatedly focus on a constantly shifting target. Under the circumstances of this litigation, Higgins had ample opportunity to frame and support his claims, and Judge Smith could justifiably treat the current petition for post-conviction relief as Higgins's final word on these issues.
Conclusion
The judgment of the superior court is AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|