Rule 67. Form and Contents of the Petition

(a) Form Prescribed by Supreme Judicial Court. The petition shall be in the form prescribed by the Supreme Judicial Court.

(b) Challenges Allowed in Single Petition. The petition shall be limited to the assertion of a claim for review of one or more criminal judgments arising from a single trial or from a single proceeding for the entry of one or more pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, or of a single post-sentencing proceeding under 15 M.R.S. § 2124(2). If a petitioner desires to attack the validity of criminal judgments arising from two or more trials or plea proceedings or two or more post-sentencing proceedings, the petitioner shall do so by separate petitions. The court in its discretion may order separate consideration of criminal judgments challenged in the same petition or may order consideration together of criminal judgments or post-sentencing proceedings which are challenged in separate petitions.

(c) Designation of Respondent. The petition shall designate the State of Maine as the respondent.

(d) Identification of Criminal Judgment, Post-sentencing Proceeding, Court, and Date. The petition shall identify the criminal judgment that is challenged. If the petition challenges a post-sentencing proceeding, it shall identify both the post-sentencing proceeding and the original criminal judgment that generated the post-sentencing proceeding. The petition must include the name of the case, the docket number, the date of entry of judgment, and the date of imposition of sentence, and must identify the Unified Criminal Docket in which the criminal judgment was entered, or if the criminal judgment was entered prior to unification, the petition shall identify the county or region where the judgment was entered.

(e) Prerequisites to an Adjudication on the Merits; Reasons for Relief and Facts in Support Thereof. The petition shall briefly address the five statutory prerequisites to an adjudication on the merits identified in Rule 66. It shall briefly state each ground for relief and the essential facts in support of each ground. Argument, citation, and discussion of legal authorities shall be omitted from the petition but may be filed in a separate document.

(f) Specification of Relief Sought. The petition shall specify the relief requested. Failure to specify the precise relief requested or failure to specify the appropriate relief available shall not preclude the court from granting any relief to which the petitioner may be entitled.

Committee Notes

Committee Advisory Note [December 2014] The Rule parallels the content of Rule 67 of the Maine Rule of Criminal Procedure but differs in the following respects. First, in subdivision (d), first and second sentences, the word "that" replaces the word "which" to reflect modern usage. Second, in subdivision (d), the final sentence combines the last two sentences of Rule 67 of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure. It clarifies what the petition must include, uses "Unified Criminal Docket" to replace "the court and the county or division" and adds the words "or if the criminal judgment was entered prior to unification, the petition shall identify the county or region where the judgment was entered." Third, in subdivision (f) the word "court" replaces the reference to "assigned justice." See Committee Advisory Note [December 2014] to M.R.U. Crim. P. 66.

[Advisory Notes to former Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure]

Advisory Committee Note – 1981 [M.R. Crim. P. 67.] The present Rule 67 requirements were each previously found in 15 M.R.S. section 2129, subsection 2 (repealed by P.L.1981, ch. 238, § 5). Not all of the criteria present in the now-repealed statutory provision, however, have been incorporated in Rule 67. The last two sentences of subsection 2, paragraph B and all of subsection 2, paragraph F have been omitted as being inappropriate for treatment by rule. Subsection 2, paragraph I has been omitted because the obligation for supplying such documentation cannot, as a matter of both practicality and efficiency, be placed upon a petitioner. In this regard Rule 71 contemplates that the respondent will file with its response, inter alia , such documentation to assist the assigned justice. The first sentence of subsection 2, paragraph J has been omitted because summary dismissal for noncompliance as previously mandated by 15 M.R.S. § 2129, subsection 5, paragraph A (repealed by P.L. 1981, ch. 238, § 5) has not been carried over into Rule 70 for two reasons. First, the sanction is unduly harsh, necessitating the intervention of present Rule 40A. Second, noncompliance with the form petition requirements occur most frequently in cases in which the petitioner files without the assistance of counsel. Such defects are, as a matter of course, cured by amendment once counsel is involved. Rule 70 has been drafted with this fact in mind. It assures both the timely assistance of counsel and the opportunity for amendment before the respondent is called upon to file a response to the petition. Lastly, the second sentence of subsection 2, paragraph J has been omitted as unnecessary.

Advisory Note – October 2013 The amendment makes a number of changes to subdivision (e). Specifically it (1) deletes and replaces in the subdivision's heading the words "Identification of Restraint or Impediment" with the words "Prerequisites to an Adjudication on the Merits"; (2) deletes from the second sentence the specific requirements that the petition briefly "identify the incarceration, other restraint or impediment under 15 M.R.S. § 2124" and replaces it with the broader requirement that the petition briefly "address the five statutory prerequisites to an adjudication on the merits identified in Rule 66," one of which is restraint or impediment. See also Advisory Note – October 2013 to M.R. Crim. P. 66; and (3) replaces in the third sentence the word "reason" where appearing with the word "ground" for purposes of clarity. The former term does not appear in the post-conviction review statute.