State v. Collins
298 P.3d 70
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Collins was convicted of murder and two counts of aggravated robbery when he was nineteen, with sentencing on January 5, 2007.
- At sentencing the court did not advise Collins of his right to appeal, though defense counsel did inform him of a right to appeal in general terms and identified potential issues.
- Defense counsel told Collins that if he changed his mind about appealing, he should inform counsel within two weeks, but did not explain the 30-day filing deadline.
- Collins twice told his attorney that he did not want to appeal, and he did not timely file a notice of appeal within the 30-day period.
- More than two years later, Collins sought reinstatement of the appeal period, arguing he was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal; the trial court denied the motion after an evidentiary hearing.
- The Utah Court of Appeals reverses and remands for reinstatement of the 30-day period for filing a direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Collins is entitled to reinstatement of the appeal period. | Collins argues he was unconstitutionally deprived of the right to appeal due to counsel's and court's failure to inform him of the deadline. | The State argues any Manning error is harmless or that counsel's advice sufficed to constitute waiver. | Yes; Collins entitled to reinstatement and remand for reinstatement of the thirty-day period. |
| Whether defense counsel's failure to inform about the deadline defeats reinstatement. | Counsel's deficient advice caused the lack of timely appeal. | Counsel properly advised of a right to appeal, but not the deadline; that suffices to deny reinstatement if not prejudicial. | Counsel's failure to inform of the deadline requires reinstatement; not enough to deny. |
| What standard applies to prejudice or harmless error in Manning-type cases. | Prejudice is presumed when informed rights are lacking, not requiring proof of filing would-have-been-appeal. | Harmless error/prejudice standards may apply, requiring showing of actual prejudice. | We follow Manning/Johnson approach; no additional showing of would-have-appeal is required for reinstatement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. State, 122 P.3d 628 (2005 UT 61) (establishes reinstatement framework for unconstitutionally deprived of appeal)
- Johnson v. State, 134 P.3d 1133 (2006 UT 21) (if neither court nor counsel informed defendant of the right to appeal, reinstatement applies)
- State v. Bowers, 57 P.3d 1065 (2002 UT 100) (noting the 30-day notice requirement and related waiver presumption)
- State v. Lara, 124 P.3d 243 (2005 UT 70) (emphasizes appeal rights as essential to fair criminal proceedings)
- State v. Alexander, 279 P.3d 371 (2012 UT 27) (withdrawal of guilty plea not require prejudicial error showing; informs analysis of informed rights)
- Crowe v. State, 649 P.2d 2 (Utah 1982) (pre-Manning context on failure to inform about appeal rights)