State v. Robinson, 540 P.3d 614

Background

In 2005 Robinson shot and killed his ex-girlfriend; he pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea deal and was sentenced to an indeterminate 20-years-to-life for aggravated murder plus a consecutive indeterminate term not to exceed five years for child abuse.
Over the years Robinson filed multiple post-conviction challenges, including at least two failed PCRA petitions.
In 2020 Robinson filed a pro se "Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence Under URCrP 22(e)", alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and suppression of favorable evidence (Brady) as grounds to correct his sentence.
The district court denied the 22(e) motion, concluding Robinson failed to identify grounds cognizable under the current text of rule 22(e) and noting the claims may be better suited to a PCRA petition.
Robinson appealed, arguing (1) his constitutional claims are cognizable under rule 22(e), (2) the court should have construed his filing as a PCRA petition based on substance, and (3) asked the Court to consider additional issues raised via an Anders submission by appellate counsel.

Issues

Issue	Robinson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether alleged ineffective assistance and Brady suppression claims are cognizable under rule 22(e)	Rule 22(e) allows challenges to allegedly unconstitutional sentences; precedent interpreted prior versions broadly so these constitutional claims fit	The current text of rule 22(e) lists specific categories and restricts constitutional corrections to new rules/rulings after the sentence became final; Robinson's claims do not fit	Court held claims are not cognizable under the present rule 22(e) because they do not fall into subparagraph (e)(1) and are not covered by (e)(2) (Strickland/Brady predate Robinson's final sentence)
Whether the district court should have construed Robinson's filing as a PCRA petition rather than as a rule 22(e) motion	Because the substance alleged ineffective assistance and Brady, the court should have treated the filing as a PCRA petition (rule 65C) despite the caption	The filing was captioned and framed as a rule 22(e) motion, filed in the criminal case, requested correction (term unique to rule 22(e)), and lacked PCRA procedural requirements; court properly treated it as a 22(e) motion	Court held it properly construed the filing as a rule 22(e) motion because Robinson invoked 22(e) in caption and substance and did not satisfy PCRA procedural form or start a separate civil petition
Whether appellate counsel may present a hybrid Anders brief combining meritorious issues and Anders issues for review	Robinson asked the Court to consider four additional issues submitted pursuant to Anders despite nonfrivolous issues being presented	Anders procedure applies only where counsel, after conscientious examination, finds the entire appeal wholly frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw; hybrid-Anders briefs are procedurally improper	Court refused to reach the Anders issues and held hybrid-Anders briefing is impermissible; Anders framework not invoked here

Key Cases Cited

State v. Candedo, 232 P.3d 1008 (Utah 2010) (interpreting prior, broader version of rule 22(e) to include certain constitutional challenges)
State v. Yazzie, 203 P.3d 984 (Utah 2009) (adopting definition of illegal sentence used by federal courts)
State v. Houston, 353 P.3d 55 (Utah 2015) (standard of review for rule 22(e) rulings)
Prion v. State, 274 P.3d 919 (Utah 2012) (discussion of illegal sentence categories and double jeopardy context)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (framework for appointed counsel seeking to withdraw when appeal is wholly frivolous)
State v. Clayton, 639 P.2d 168 (Utah 1981) (Utah adoption of Anders procedures)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective assistance standard)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)