Cunningham v. State, 2012 UT App 358

Pursuant to a plea, Cunningham pled guilty to murder (DV) and DUI with two priors, and received a five-years-to-life term and zero-to-five years respectively in 2005.
In 2010 Cunningham filed a post-conviction relief petition asserting ineffective assistance of counsel.
The State moved for summary judgment, arguing accrual occurred after he knew or should have known evidentiary facts, within one year under §78B-9-107(2)(e).
The post-conviction court dismissed as untimely, finding no equitable tolling under §78B-9-107(3).
Cunningham appeals, contending the PCRA’s “interest of justice” exception excuses the late filing.
The court affirms, holding the petitioner did not prove a timely filing could be excused by any exception and that substantial constitutional arguments need not be reached.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of PCRA petition under one-year limit and tolling	Cunningham	State	Untimely under statute; no tolling shown.
Application of 'interest of justice' exception under prior PCRA	Cunningham relied on former §78-35a-107(3)	No sufficient justification; exception not invoked	Not applicable under the prior version.
Constitutionality and current tolling provisions	Current tolling flexible enough?	Not addressed unless required	Constitutional challenge not reached; not needed to resolve.
Knowledge of basis for ineffective assistance claim and timing	Knew of intoxication and erroneous plea advice months into term	Timeliness tied to discovery of evidentiary facts	Knowledge occurred within one-year limit; no tolling applied.
Whether the court should apply equitable tolling or preserve petition	Equitable tolling justified by interests of justice	No tolling justified by record	No tolling; petition dismissed.

Gardner v. State, 234 P.3d 1115 (Utah 2010) (standard for 'interest of justice' exception in PCRA)
State v. Anderson, 701 P.2d 1099 (Utah 1985) (avoid addressing constitutional issues unless required)