justifiable excuse for his failure. However, the prosecution supports this argument with cases and standards relating to successive posteonviction motions, as opposed to cases and standards relating to the initial posteon-viction motion following prosecution proceedings and, where taken, direct appeal. See, e.g., Turman v. Buckallew, 784 P.2d 774, 780 (Colo.1989) (affirming dismissal of claims raised in second habeas corpus petition because defendant failed to raise those claims in the first petition); People v. Billips, 652 P.2d 1060, 1063 (Colo.1982) (allowing defendant to bring a constitutional claim on a successive posteonviction motion because the claim had not been fully and finally litigated in the previous posteonviction proceeding); Hubbard, 184 Colo. at 249, 519 P.2d at 948 (<HOLDING>); ABA Standards for Criminal Justice:
holding that absent justification for the failure to present all known claims in a single timely petition for writ of habeas corpus successive andor untimely petitions will be summarily denied holding that district courts may properly treat rule 60b motions as successive habeas petitions holding that successive posttrial motions do not toll the time for appeal holding that a trial court cannot summarily dismiss a section 2  1401 petition holding that on successive posteonviction motions the court may summarily dismiss newlyasserted grounds absent sufficient excuse