Sandoval v. State, 441 P.3d 748

Background

Brandon Sandoval was convicted in 2008 of aggravated burglary, theft, and criminal mischief; direct appeals concluded by June 2011.
Trial exhibits (beanie, bandana, duffle with stolen property, and a shell casing) were never DNA-tested and were destroyed by court personnel on May 9, 2012 pursuant to Utah Code of Judicial Administration Rule 4-206.
The Rocky Mountain Innocence Center learned of the destruction in late 2012; Sandoval filed a post-conviction petition under the PCRA (filed via rule 65C) on October 30, 2013 alleging among other things the loss prevented post-conviction DNA testing and violated due process.
Sandoval later abandoned his PCRA-based claims on appeal and pressed instead a standalone as-applied state due process challenge to the destruction and to lack of actual notice.
The district court granted summary judgment for the State; the Utah Supreme Court affirmed, finding (1) Sandoval did not pursue any claim cognizable under the PCRA on appeal, and (2) his standalone state due process claim was either procedurally improper or insufficiently supported.

Issues

Issue	Sandoval's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the PCRA provides a statutory remedy for the loss of post-conviction evidence	PCRA (esp. §301) creates substantive right to post-conviction DNA testing; destruction deprived that statutory right	PCRA does not provide relief for destruction of evidence post-conviction as claimed; petitioner abandoned PCRA grounds on appeal	The PCRA offers Sandoval no relief as presented; he abandoned relevant PCRA claims on appeal and thus has no statutory remedy
Whether a standalone state due process claim (as-applied) based on destruction and lack of notice was properly presented in a rule 65C petition	Destruction pursuant to rule 4-206 and lack of actual notice violated Utah constitutional due process rights and stripped the ability to pursue §301 testing	The due process claim was not properly presented in the rule 65C petition; procedural vehicle improper and claim foreclosed by PCRA’s sole-remedy scheme	The court held the standalone due process claim was improperly before it (procedurally defective) and thus not a proper basis for relief
If a state due process right exists, whether destruction violated it	The statutory right to post-conviction DNA testing implies ancillary procedural rights (e.g., evidence retention, notice) and destruction violated those rights	Even if a right existed, Sandoval failed to show (a) such a state-constitutional right exists or (b) that destruction (after two years) and constructive notice were insufficient	The court declined to recognize or define a state constitutional right here; ruled Sandoval failed to carry his burden to show such a right or its violation and affirmed summary judgment

Key Cases Cited

District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (federal discussion of postconviction DNA testing and limits of due process in postconviction context)
State v. Tiedemann, 162 P.3d 1106 (Utah 2007) (Utah precedent about pretrial destruction of evidence and defendant access to state-held information)
State v. Drej, 233 P.3d 476 (Utah 2010) (discussion that statutory procedures can create substantive rights and related procedural protections)
Meza v. State, 359 P.3d 592 (Utah 2015) (concurrence emphasizing PCRA’s sole-remedy/foreclosure effect)