Aice v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an allegation that prior PCR counsel was ineffective is not per se a sufficient reason allowing for a successive PCR application
• holding successive applications are disfavored and the burden is on the applicant to establish that any new ground raised in a subsequent application could not have been raised in a previous application
• denying a successive PCR application where the defendant failed to show a sufficient reason to entertain the successive application
• interpreting section 17-27-90 to prohibit “a successive PCR application unless an applicant can point to a ‘sufficient reason’ why the new grounds for relief he asserts were not raised, or were not raised properly”
• stating additional judicial review after PCR is appropriate only when the judicial system has failed a defendant in such a way that to continue his imprisonment without further review would amount to a gross miscarriage of justice
• stating “successive applications for relief are not to be entertained, and the burden shall be on the applicant to establish that any new ground raised in a subsequent application could not have been raised by him in the previous application.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).