Johnson v. State
267 P.3d 880
Utah2011Background
- Johnson was convicted by jury in June 2004 for murdering his child's babysitter, receiving an indeterminate sentence of five years to life.
- Post-conviction relief petition was filed in district court with nine claimed issues, though styled as three.
- The district court dismissed several claims as frivolous or previously adjudicated and dismissed others as procedurally barred under the PCRA.
- On direct appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson’s conviction after rejecting multiple claims of 404(b) evidence and trial counsel errors.
- The State moved to dismiss the remaining post-conviction claims as procedurally barred for not having been raised on direct appeal.
- This Court affirmed, holding the PCRA’s procedural bars applied and the petition was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the PCRA procedural bars preclude relief | Johnson argues merits should be reached | State contends claims are barred or previously adjudicated | Yes, district court properly dismissed under PCRA bars |
| Whether claims 6-8 were raisable on direct appeal | Johnson could have raised these issues earlier | Barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal | Yes, barred under direct-appeal grounds |
| Whether Claims 2-5 and 9 were frivolous or lacked jurisdiction | Claims valid but not properly reviewable | Claims frivolous or outside district court jurisdiction | Yes, frivolous/previously adjudicated or frivolous/framed as misdirected review |
| Whether any exceptions to the PCRA bars apply | Exceptions permit relief | Exceptions do not apply here | No, no applicable exceptions found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (exception to procedural bars when trial and direct-appeal counsel overlap)
- Rudolph v. Galetka, 43 P.3d 467 (Utah 2002) (framing of procedural-bar absolutions in post-conviction relief)
- State v. Johnson, 163 P.3d 695 (Utah App. 2007) (affirmation of conviction; analyses on 404(b) and trial counsel claims)
- Carter v. Galetka, 44 P.3d 626 (Utah 2001) (habeas and appellate review limitations; pleading requirements)
- State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (recognizes direct-appeal timing for ineffective assistance)