Lucero v. State, 369 P.3d 469

In 2010 Lucero was charged with multiple child-sex offenses committed between 1999 and 2003; charges were first reported to police around 2010.
In 2011 Lucero pleaded guilty to amended counts (one first-degree attempted aggravated sexual abuse; one second-degree sexual abuse); other counts were dismissed; he did not withdraw the plea or appeal.
In 2013 Lucero filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a statute-of-limitations defense.
The State moved for summary judgment arguing the limitations period did not bar prosecution because a 2008 statute eliminated the time limit for these offenses (allowing prosecution at any time) and thus counsel’s failure to move to dismiss would have been futile.
The district court granted the State’s motion, denied Lucero’s cross-motion, and dismissed the PCRA petition; this appeal followed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the statute of limitations barred prosecution for offenses committed 1999–2003	Lucero: the pre-2008 limitations (§ 76-1-303.5) applied and expired, so prosecution was barred	State: 2008 repeal/recodification (§ 76-1-301) enlarged/eliminated the limitations period and applied retroactively because the limitations defense had not yet accrued (crimes unreported until ~2010)	Court: Held limitations did not bar prosecution; 2008 amendment applied retroactively because defense had not accrued before amendment took effect
Whether trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to raise the limitations defense	Lucero: counsel was deficient for not asserting the limitations defense, prejudicing his plea and post-conviction remedies	State: counsel’s failure was not deficient because any motion to dismiss on limitations grounds would have been futile given the 2008 statute	Court: Held counsel was not ineffective—failure to raise a futile motion is not deficient under Strickland; PCRA claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard; performance and prejudice prongs)
State v. Green, 108 P.3d 710 (Utah 2005) (retroactivity of amendments enlarging limitations periods when defense has not accrued)
State v. Lusk, 37 P.3d 1103 (Utah 2001) (legislative enlargement of limitations applies retroactively if the earlier limitations had not run)
Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012) (standard of review for summary judgment in post-conviction context)
Layton City v. Carr, 336 P.3d 587 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (counsel not deficient for failing to make futile objections or motions)