Skip to main content

Cole v. State

Citations

  • 15 P.3d 820
  • 135 Idaho 107
  • 2000 Ida. LEXIS 124

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that petitioner’s “statement, requesting leave to amend if his counsel so suggests, is not a specific request to the court for leave to amend” because it only contemplates that petitioner may want leave to amend if his counsel so suggests
  • holding: “Because Cole did not properly request and receive leave to amend his post-conviction relief petition, the amended petition was not properly before the district judge; therefore, the district judge did not err in dismissing Cole’s petition.”
  • saying in. a post-conviction case, the statute of limitation defense is not a jurisdictional issue that may be raised at any time and it is waived by failure to raise the de fense in the trial court
  • “a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition”
  • “a motion for leave to file an amended petition was required before it was necessary for the district judge to consider the amended petition”
  • failure to comply with limitation period does not result in a jurisdictional defect

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Trout, Silak, Schroeder, Walters, Kidwell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

16 cases in this archive cite this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.