The Idaho Court of Appeals recognized that I.C. § 19-852 required the trial court to appoint Quinlan counsel if his habeas action wasn't frivolous. The Court found that the Ex Post Facto argument had merit, and that the trial court should have appointed Quinlan a lawyer to argue that issue.
Quinlan’s victory was short-lived, though. On review by the Supreme Court of Idaho, the appellate ruling was reversed. The Supreme Court found “that prison inmates do not have a statutory right of mandatory counsel in habeas corpus proceedings. We further hold that the Parole Commission's rule changes do not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.” The trial court’s dismissal of the case was upheld. See: Quinlan v. Idaho Commission for Pardons and Parole, 138 Idaho 726, 69 P.3d 146 (Idaho, 2003).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Quinlan v. Idaho Commission for Pardons and Parole
|Cite||138 Idaho 726, 69 P.3d 146 (Idaho, 2003)|
|Level||State Supreme Court|