Jackson v. State, 2015 UT App 217

In 2008 Jackson was charged with rape (first-degree) based on a 2003 sexual-intercourse allegation involving a 17-year-old; the information was amended to include unlawful sexual conduct (third-degree) as an alternative charge.
The statute of limitations for unlawful sexual conduct had expired before the State added that alternative charge; Jackson did not raise the limitations defense at trial and waived a preliminary hearing for the lesser charge.
At trial the jury was instructed on both rape and unlawful sexual conduct; Jackson was acquitted of rape but convicted of unlawful sexual conduct.
On direct appeal this court held unlawful sexual conduct is not a lesser-included offense of rape and that Jackson forfeited the statute-of-limitations defense by not raising it at trial.
Jackson filed a PCRA petition asserting ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to timely identify/raise the statute-of-limitations defense; the district court granted the State’s summary-judgment motion and dismissed the petition.
This appeal challenges the dismissal, arguing counsel’s omission was not strategic and thus deficient; the court affirms, finding counsel’s conduct objectively reasonable as a plausible trial strategy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to timely assert the statute-of-limitations defense to the unlawful-sexual-conduct charge	Jackson: counsel failed to investigate/identify the expired limitations period and thus performance was objectively deficient	State: waiving the limitations defense could be a sound trial strategy to secure conviction on a lesser charge and avoid an all-or-nothing choice that could produce conviction on the greater charge	Court: counsel’s waiver was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; Jackson did not rebut the presumption of competent strategy, so no deficient performance shown

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (focus on objective reasonableness of counsel’s performance)
Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (benefit to defendants from lesser-offense option for jury)
Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U.S. 447 (all-or-nothing choices can increase conviction risk)
Menzies v. State, 344 P.3d 581 (Utah) (burden rules on ineffective-assistance claims in PCRA summary-judgment context)
Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah) (standard of review for PCRA denial/summary judgment)
State v. Jackson, 263 P.3d 540 (Utah Ct. App.) (direct appeal resolving limitation/forfeiture issues in this case)
State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461 (Utah Ct. App.) (deference to plausible strategic explanations for counsel conduct)
State v. Baker, 671 P.2d 152 (Utah) (third-option benefit from lesser-offense submission to jury)