Collum v. State
2015 UT App 229
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Collum pleaded no contest to sexual abuse of a child and was sentenced July 6, 2010; Judgment entered July 8, 2010; no direct appeal was filed.
- Collum filed a petition for post-conviction relief (PCRA) in June 2013, which the trial court treated as untimely under Utah Code § 78B-9-107 and dismissed.
- The trial court invited briefing on timeliness; both sides submitted responses and the court dismissed on the limitations ground without reaching a constitutional challenge.
- Collum conceded untimeliness but argued various bases to permit review on the merits: reinstatement of appeal rights analogy (Manning), accrual under alternative subsections of § 78B-9-107, tolling for state action, and entitlement to appointed counsel.
- The court found no new rule of law, no newly discovered evidentiary facts, no state action preventing filing, and no right to appointed counsel in noncapital PCRA proceedings.
- Appeal limited to dismissal order; other collateral arguments (reconsideration, substantive claims) were deemed irrelevant or procedurally out of scope.
Issues
| Issue | Collum's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness / accrual date for PCRA | Petition should be considered timely or accrual date later than Aug 9, 2010 | Accrual date was Aug 9, 2010 (one year from last day to appeal); petition filed after one-year limit | Dismissed as untimely; accrual date stands at Aug 9, 2010 |
| New-rule accrual under § 78B-9-107(2)(f) | A subsequently announced rule could trigger later accrual | No new rule identified that applies post-conviction | No newly announced rule; subsection inapplicable |
| Accrual based on when petitioner knew evidentiary facts § 78B-9-107(2)(e) | Later research and knowledge warrant later accrual date | Operative facts were known by sentencing; no new evidentiary facts alleged | Petition based on known facts; no later accrual date established |
| Tolling for state action § 78B-9-107(3) | Lack of access to courts / ineffective contract counsel prevented filing | Collum met with contract attorneys and did not show state action prevented filing | No tolling; petitioner failed to show state action prevented filing |
| Right to appointed counsel in PCRA | Trial court erred by not appointing counsel for post-conviction proceedings | No constitutional right to counsel in noncapital PCRA | No right to counsel; trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. State, 122 P.3d 628 (Utah 2005) (permits courts to reinstate the time to file a direct appeal in appropriate circumstances)
- Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012) (petitioner must show reasonable justification for missing deadline plus a meritorious defense before reaching constitutional challenge)
- Hutchings v. State, 84 P.3d 1150 (Utah 2003) (no right to appointed counsel in noncapital post-conviction proceedings)
- State v. Rhinehart, 167 P.3d 1046 (Utah 2007) (withdrawing plea before sentencing affects availability of direct appeal for plea validity)
- Carter v. State, 289 P.3d 542 (Utah 2012) (appellate courts are not required to address every issue raised if not relevant to disposition)