State v. Allgier
2017 UT 84
| Utah | 2017Background
- In 2007 Allgier, while in custody, disarmed a transport officer, fatally shot him, fled, committed additional violent acts, and was arrested; prior convictions made firearm possession prohibited.
- He was charged with aggravated murder (capital), multiple first-degree felonies, three counts of attempted aggravated murder, and possession of a firearm by a restricted person.
- Five years after indictment Allgier entered a plea deal: State would not seek death; he pleaded guilty/no contest to multiple counts and agreed to life without parole for aggravated murder.
- At the plea hearing Allgier signed a plea affidavit acknowledging he waived certain rights and understood he must move to withdraw any plea before sentencing; he waived maximum time for sentencing.
- Allgier was sentenced two months later to consecutive long terms. He did not move to withdraw at sentencing; after sentencing he mailed a notice (Dec. 22, 2012) seeking to withdraw pleas and filed an appeal. He later claimed he mailed an earlier October 11, 2012 motion, but the court found no record of it.
- The district court denied the post-sentencing withdrawal motion as untimely under Utah’s Plea Withdrawal Statute (Utah Code § 77-13-6); Allgier appealed, challenging the statute’s constitutionality and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Allgier's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Utah’s Plea Withdrawal Statute’s pre-sentencing deadline unconstitutionally bars a direct appeal under Utah Const. art. I, §12 | Statute deprives him of the right to direct appellate review; PCRA is not an adequate substitute | Statute is a procedural jurisdictional rule that requires pre-sentencing withdrawal; postconviction remedies remain available | Court affirmed statute as a jurisdictional/procedural bar; it does not violate the constitutional right to appeal and Allgier forfeited direct appeal by not moving before sentencing |
| Whether precedent (Merrill, Rhinehart, Gailey) should be overruled or reconsidered | Argues prior precedent is weak, outdated, and inconsistent with recent developments (cites Lafler/Frye) | Precedent is well-established; Lafler/Frye do not address jurisdictional bars and were postconviction cases | Court declined to overturn precedent; reaffirmed that the statute’s deadline is jurisdictional and precedent stands |
| Whether ineffective assistance at plea stage can bypass the pre-sentencing filing requirement | Claims counsel was ineffective at the plea hearing, so failure to file timely motion should be excused | Claims of ineffective assistance in plea context must be pursued under PCRA after sentencing | Court held ineffective-assistance claims must be pursued via postconviction relief; it lacks jurisdiction to consider such claims on direct appeal post-sentencing |
| Whether alleged mailed but unfiled pre-sentencing motion (October 11) preserves right | Allgier asserted he mailed motion before sentencing and sought to supplement the record | State and district court found no record of receipt or legal mail log entries; court denied supplementation | Court denied supplementation; no proof of timely filing — therefore motion was not timely and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Gailey v. State, 379 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2016) (reaffirmed that Utah’s plea-withdrawal deadline is a jurisdictional/procedural bar to post-sentencing direct appeal)
- State v. Merrill, 114 P.3d 585 (Utah 2005) (traced and affirmed prior holdings that late plea-withdrawal filings are jurisdictionally barred)
- State v. Rhinehart, 167 P.3d 1046 (Utah 2007) (held ineffective-assistance claims contesting plea lawfulness are governed by the plea-withdrawal statute and not reviewable on direct appeal post-sentencing)
- State v. Abeyta, 852 P.2d 993 (Utah 1993) (recognized that statutory filing deadline extinguishes the right to withdraw a guilty plea after the deadline)
- Menzies v. State, 889 P.2d 393 (Utah 1994) (discussed standards for overruling precedent and burden to persuade the court)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (recognized Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel at plea-bargaining stage; decided on postconviction review)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012) (addressed effective assistance in plea negotiations; arose in postconviction context)