State v. Collins
342 P.3d 789
Utah2014Background
- Robert Collins was convicted of murder and aggravated robbery (Oct 2006) and sentenced (Jan 2007); neither the trial court nor counsel informed him of the 30‑day appellate filing deadline required by Utah R. Crim. P. 22(c)(1).
- Collins's trial counsel, Clayton Simms, twice discussed appealability and encouraged an appeal; Collins said he did not want to appeal and at one point believed Simms would file automatically.
- Collins learned more than two years later that no notice of appeal had been filed and then moved under Utah R. App. P. 4(f) and Manning v. State for reinstatement of his right to appeal.
- The trial court denied reinstatement, finding Simms credible and Collins insufficiently diligent; the Utah Court of Appeals reversed, holding that failure to advise of the 30‑day deadline entitled Collins to reinstatement without a showing he would have appealed.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the court of appeals, holding claims for reinstatement under Manning and Rule 4(f) are subject to harmless‑error review and remanding to determine whether Collins proved by a preponderance that he would have appealed but for the failure to inform him.
Issues
| Issue | Collins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who was not informed of the 30‑day appeal deadline is automatically entitled to reinstatement under Manning (scenario 3) | Collins: Lack of notice alone satisfies Manning; no further showing required | State: Defendant must show "but for" causation — that he would have appealed if properly informed; harmless‑error review applies | Held: Harmless‑error review applies; defendant must show by preponderance that he was not informed and that but for that error he would have timely appealed |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to advise under Rule 22(c)(1) is a structural error exempt from harmless‑error analysis | Collins: Counsel’s and court’s failure deprived him of appellate right; presumed prejudice | State: Error is subject to harmless‑error; not structural | Held: Not structural; does not infect entire trial process; harmless‑error analysis applies |
| Standard/burden for reinstatement under Manning and Rule 4(f) | Collins: Manning scenario three does not require proof of prejudice beyond lack of notice | State: Manning and Rule 4(f) require showing defendant was deprived — inherently requires "but for" causation | Held: Defendant must prove by a preponderance (1) neither court nor counsel properly advised, and (2) but for that failure he would have appealed |
| Remand scope: whether court must hold new evidentiary hearing | Collins: Existing record suffices to show deprivation | State: Trial court may need to evaluate credibility and causation | Held: Remand to trial court to determine whether Collins met his burden; trial court may hold further hearings or rely on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. State, 122 P.3d 628 (Utah 2005) (establishes reinstatement framework and three scenarios of unconstitutional deprivation of appeal rights)
- Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (1999) (court’s failure to advise of appeal right is subject to harmless‑error analysis where defendant had independent knowledge)
- Roe v. Flores‑Ortega, 528 U.S. 470 (2000) (ineffective‑assistance rule: defendant must show "but for" counsel’s deficient performance he would have appealed)
- State v. Patton, 195 P.3d 753 (Kan. 2008) (requires proof that, if properly informed, defendant would have sought a timely appeal)
- State v. Alexander, 279 P.3d 371 (Utah 2012) (distinguished by majority; plea‑withdrawal context where prejudice need not be shown)