Sec. 12.72.010. Scope of post-conviction relief.

389 words·~2 min read·/ak/title-12/chapter-72/12-72-010

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

A person who has been convicted of, or sentenced for, a crime may institute a proceeding for post-conviction relief if the person claims

(1)that the conviction or the sentence was in violation of the Constitution of the United States or the constitution or laws of this state;

(2)that the court was without jurisdiction to impose sentence;

(3)that a prior conviction has been set aside and the prior conviction was used as a statutorily required enhancement of the sentence imposed;

(4)that there exists evidence of material facts, not previously presented and heard by the court, that requires vacation of the conviction or sentence in the interest of justice; if the person seeks post-conviction DNA testing to support a claim under this paragraph, the person's exclusive method for obtaining that testing is an application under AS 12.73 ;

(5)that the person's sentence has expired, or the person's probation, parole, or conditional release has been unlawfully revoked, or the person is otherwise unlawfully held in custody or other restraint;

(6)that the conviction or sentence is otherwise subject to collateral attack upon any ground or alleged error previously available under the common law, statutory law, or other writ, motion, petition, proceeding, or remedy;

(7)that

(A)there has been a significant change in law, whether substantive or procedural, applied in the process leading to the person's conviction or sentence;

(B)the change in the law was not reasonably foreseeable by a judge or a competent attorney;

(C)it is appropriate to retroactively apply the change in law because the change requires observance of procedures without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished; and

(D)the failure to retroactively apply the change in law would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, which is established by demonstrating that, had the changed law been in effect at the time of the applicant's trial, a reasonable trier of fact would have a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the applicant;

(8)that, after the imposition of sentence, the applicant seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in order to correct manifest injustice under the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure; or

(9)that the applicant was not afforded effective assistance of counsel at trial or on direct appeal.