Alvarez-Delvalle v. State
351 P.3d 104
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Alvarez-Delvalle was convicted in state court; he pursued a direct appeal and lost on several claims, including denial of new counsel and two ineffective-assistance claims.
- He filed a post-conviction petition under Utah’s Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA).
- The PCRA bars relief for claims that were raised/decided on appeal or could have been raised on appeal, unless the failure to raise them was due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
- Alvarez-Delvalle was represented by different counsel on direct appeal than at trial.
- The district court dismissed his PCRA petition as procedurally barred under Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(b) and (1)(c), concluding he did not allege appellate counsel was ineffective.
- On appeal, Alvarez-Delvalle attempted for the first time (and in conclusory fashion) to claim appellate ineffectiveness; the court declined to consider that new, inadequately briefed claim and affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether PCRA bars claims already raised/decided on direct appeal | Alvarez-Delvalle reasserted claims decided on direct appeal | State: such claims are procedurally barred by § 78B-9-106(1)(b) | Court: barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether PCRA bars claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not | Alvarez-Delvalle sought to raise additional trial-ineffectiveness claims in PCRA | State: claims could have been raised on appeal and are barred under § 78B-9-106(1)(c) when appellant had different appellate counsel | Court: barred; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether ineffective-assistance exception applies when appellate counsel was different | Alvarez-Delvalle argues trial counsel ineffective; implies appellate counsel should have raised them | State: to invoke exception, petitioner must show appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising those trial-ineffectiveness claims on appeal | Court: exception requires specific allegation/factual showing of appellate counsel ineffectiveness; Alvarez-Delvalle did not make that showing |
| Whether appellate-ineffectiveness claim can be raised for first time on appeal | Alvarez-Delvalle raised appellate-ineffectiveness conclusorily on appeal | State: claim was not pleaded below and is inadequately briefed | Court: declines to consider new, conclusory claim raised first on appeal; affirm dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (ineffective-assistance exception requires showing appellate counsel failed to raise issues of trial counsel ineffectiveness)
- Johnson v. State, 267 P.3d 880 (Utah 2011) (where different counsel handled trial and appeal, PCRA preclusion applies unless appellate counsel was ineffective)
- State v. Alvarez-Delvalle, 275 P.3d 279 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (direct appeal decision rejecting trial-counsel ineffectiveness and denial of new counsel claims)