State v. Kabor, 295 P.3d 193

Kabor was convicted in 2008 of murder, obstruction of justice, and three firearm counts; sentences imposed January 23, 2009 with murder/obstruction consecutive and firearm terms concurrent.
The district court failed to notify Kabor of his right to appeal following sentencing as required by rule 22(c).
Kabor filed a timely notice of appeal 77 days after sentencing and then moved to reinstate the appeal period under rule 4(f), arguing unconstitutional denial of the right to appeal.
A hearing was held where Kabor testified that his attorney advised him about appeal rights but he claimed he was never clearly informed of the 30-day deadline.
Kabor’s attorney testified he discussed appeal rights with Kabor and advised appointment of appellate counsel if needed; Kabor stated he did not want to appeal.
The district court credited the attorney’s testimony, found Kabor knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal, and denied reinstatement; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Kabor unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal?	Kabor argues noncompliance with rule 22(c) and Manning requires reinstatement.	District court properly found waiver based on attorney advisement and Kabor's statements.	No; district court did not err in denying reinstatement; waiver and counsel advisement negated deprivation.
Is there a requirement that counsel's advice be on the record to suffice?	Advice must be on the record to count as proper notification.	Off‑record advice can satisfy notice; Manning permits evidentiary hearings to determine deprivation.	No; on-record not required; counsel’s testimony and conduct can constitute proper notification.
Were counsel's explanations unduly confusing or unclear to satisfy due process?	Kabor’s confusion could render notice improper.	Counsel adequately explained rights, timing, and process consistent with notice requirements.	No; explanations were adequate and not unduly confusing given context and timing.

Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61 (Utah Supreme Court 2005) (establishes when reinstatement is warranted; three Manning exceptions to waiver)
Peguero v. United States, 526 U.S. 23 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (explains that failure to notify may be excused if actual knowledge exists and no prejudice)
Johnson v. State, 2006 UT 21 (Utah Supreme Court 2006) (remanding for consideration of whether defendant was deprived of right to appeal)
Braggs v. City of Seattle, 705 P.2d 303 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985) (supports need for compelling circumstances when record does not show notice)
Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61 (Utah Supreme Court 2005) (third‑exception analysis: court and attorney failure to provide notice)
Calhoun v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 2004 UT 56 (Utah Supreme Court 2004) (statutory interpretation on notice and disjunctive obligations)
Hales v. State, 2007 UT 14 (Utah Supreme Court 2007) (mixed question review for due process in deprivation claims)