State v. Mardoniz-Rosado
328 P.3d 864
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Mardoniz-Rosado pleaded guilty in 1996 to a misdemeanor retail theft with advised rights but no plea transcript or waiver form in the record.
- He was sentenced to a suspended 90‑day jail term, a $1,000 fine, and six months of probation, which he completed.
- In 2012, sixteen years later, he moved to withdraw his plea alleging ineffective assistance for not advising him of immigration consequences and sought to reinstate a direct appeal.
- The district court held a hearing, found he was not advised of the right to appeal, reinstated the right to appeal, and denied the withdrawal motion without explaining its rationale.
- Mardoniz‑Rosado appeals the denial, challenging the district court’s jurisdiction to entertain the motion and the propriety of sua sponte action and alternative common-law relief.
- The majority affirms, holding the withdrawal motion was untimely under Utah law, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it, and relief must be sought under the PCRA with potential avenues only if PCRA relief is denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court have jurisdiction to entertain the motion to withdraw the plea? | Mardoniz-Rosado. | Mandoniz-Rosado argued lack of timely filing should be excused due to court findings. | No; motion untimely and court lacked jurisdiction. |
| May the district court set aside a guilty plea sua sponte after final judgment? | Mardoniz-Rosado. | District court could sua sponte set aside post‑judgment relief. | Generally no after final judgment; jurisdiction terminated. |
| Whether common-law coram nobis or exceptions apply before PCRA relief is pursued. | Mardoniz-Rosado. | Alternative remedies/*exceptions may apply. | Premature; PCRA procedure must be pursued first. |
| Must relief be sought under the PCRA and Rule 65C rather than common-law devices? | Mardoniz-Rosado. | Common-law avenues are unavailable absent PCRA relief. | Yes; PCRA is required; other relief awaits denial or bypass via extraordinary means. |
| Does Padilla apply retroactively to negate the timing issues here? | Mardoniz-Rosado referenced Padilla. | Chaidez holds Padilla not retroactive to prefinal convictions. | Padilla not retroactive; not able to revive timely withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Stone, 305 P.3d 167 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2013) (jurisdictional bar on late-filed motions to withdraw guilty pleas)
- Grimmett v. State, 152 P.3d 306 (Utah Supreme Court, 2007) (timeliness and jurisdictional constraints for withdrawal)
- State v. Morello, 927 P.2d 646 (Utah Court of Appeals, 1996) (burden on proving rule 11 colloquy compliance when transcript is unavailable)
- State v. Verikokides, 925 P.2d 1255 (Utah Supreme Court, 1996) (record gaps and doctrinal limits on error preservation)
- Manning v. State, 122 P.3d 628 (Utah Supreme Court, 2005) (reinstatement of the right to appeal in criminal cases)
- Lopez v. State, 128 P.3d 1 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2005) (sua sponte post-plea relief framework distinguished)
- Ott v. State, 247 P.3d 344 (Utah Supreme Court, 2010) (distinction from Lopez regarding post-judgment relief)
- Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah Supreme Court, 2012) (framework for applying common-law exceptions to PCRA)
- Jackson v. State, 243 P.3d 902 (Utah Court of Appeals, 2010) (distinguishes discretionary reopening of evidence from post-judgment relief)