State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Washington > Title-10 > 10-73 > 10-73-100

Collateral attack — When one year limit not applicable.

The time limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 does not apply to a petition or motion that is based solely on one or more of the following grounds:

     (1) Newly discovered evidence, if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the petition or motion;

     (2) The statute that the defendant was convicted of violating was unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant's conduct;

     (3) The conviction was barred by double jeopardy under Amendment V of the United States Constitution or Article I, section 9 of the state Constitution;

     (4) The defendant pled not guilty and the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the conviction;

     (5) The sentence imposed was in excess of the court's jurisdiction; or

     (6) There has been a significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, which is material to the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted by the state or local government, and either the legislature has expressly provided that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application, determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard.

[1989 c 395 § 2.]

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Washington > Title-10 > 10-73 > 10-73-100

Collateral attack — When one year limit not applicable.

The time limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 does not apply to a petition or motion that is based solely on one or more of the following grounds:

     (1) Newly discovered evidence, if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the petition or motion;

     (2) The statute that the defendant was convicted of violating was unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant's conduct;

     (3) The conviction was barred by double jeopardy under Amendment V of the United States Constitution or Article I, section 9 of the state Constitution;

     (4) The defendant pled not guilty and the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the conviction;

     (5) The sentence imposed was in excess of the court's jurisdiction; or

     (6) There has been a significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, which is material to the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted by the state or local government, and either the legislature has expressly provided that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application, determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard.

[1989 c 395 § 2.]


State Codes and Statutes

State Codes and Statutes

Statutes > Washington > Title-10 > 10-73 > 10-73-100

Collateral attack — When one year limit not applicable.

The time limit specified in RCW 10.73.090 does not apply to a petition or motion that is based solely on one or more of the following grounds:

     (1) Newly discovered evidence, if the defendant acted with reasonable diligence in discovering the evidence and filing the petition or motion;

     (2) The statute that the defendant was convicted of violating was unconstitutional on its face or as applied to the defendant's conduct;

     (3) The conviction was barred by double jeopardy under Amendment V of the United States Constitution or Article I, section 9 of the state Constitution;

     (4) The defendant pled not guilty and the evidence introduced at trial was insufficient to support the conviction;

     (5) The sentence imposed was in excess of the court's jurisdiction; or

     (6) There has been a significant change in the law, whether substantive or procedural, which is material to the conviction, sentence, or other order entered in a criminal or civil proceeding instituted by the state or local government, and either the legislature has expressly provided that the change in the law is to be applied retroactively, or a court, in interpreting a change in the law that lacks express legislative intent regarding retroactive application, determines that sufficient reasons exist to require retroactive application of the changed legal standard.

[1989 c 395 § 2.]

Categories