State v. Travis Wade Amaral

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a petitioner seeking post-conviction relief is entitled to an evidentiary hearing if “he has alleged facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence”
• reaffirming that 1 under Rule 32.1(e), “the evidence must not simply be cumulative or impeaching”
• discussing the purpose of an evidentiary hearing in the post- conviction context
• If the facts alleged by petitioner “would not have probably changed the verdict or sentence, then the claim is subject to summary dismissal.”
• appellate court reviews superior court’s summary dismissal of a Rule 32 proceeding for abuse of discretion
• a court should consider whether the “facts which, if true, would probably have changed the verdict or sentence” to hold an evidentiary hearing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).