In re Harley B.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that ignorance of the law and the court rules does not constitute excusable neglect
• holding that \enlargement of Rule 3:22-12's time limits is absolutely prohibited.\
• explaining that the one-year time limitation for the filing of a second or subsequent PCR petition may not be enlarged
• recognizing a second or subsequent petition filed beyond the one-year time frame \c[an]not be excused in the same manner as the late filing of a first PCR petition\
• recognizing relaxation of the time frame for subsequent PCR petitions, even those containing new allegations of ineffective assistance of first PCR counsel, is prohibited except as permitted by the rule itself
• explaining that Rule 3:22-12(a)(1)(A), which allows for the late filing of a first PCR petition where excusable neglect and a fundamental injustice are shown, \has no application to second or subsequent petitions\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).