State v. Scott
2013 UT App 47
| Utah Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Scott sought to reinstate the time to file a direct appeal under Manning after an initial denial.
- Manning creates a procedure to restore the right of direct appeal when the denial occurred through no fault of the defendant.
- Scott pursued a direct appeal on the merits, which was affirmed in State v. Scott, 2009 UT App 367U (mem.).
- The appellate court found Scott had inadequately briefed his arguments and failed to marshal evidence supporting his position.
- Scott claimed appellate counsel was ineffective for briefing and not filing a petition for certiorari; the issue implicates Manning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Scott obtain reinstitution of time under Manning. | Scott asserts entitlement under Manning to restore the appeal window. | State contends Manning not applicable; issues exhausted on direct appeal and PCRA required for ineffectiveness claims. | Not entitled; issue governed by PCRA as refined in Rees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61 (Utah Supreme Court, 2005) (establishes procedure to restore direct-appeal rights when denial is unconstitutional through no fault of defendant)
- State v. Rees, 2005 UT 69 (Utah Supreme Court, 2005) (clarifies exhaustion of direct appeal and PCRA remedy for ineffective appellate counsel claims)
- State v. Scott, 2009 UT App 367U (mem.) (Utah Appellate Court, 2009) (direct-appeal merits affirmance; inadequate briefing; no inherent improbability; not deprived of direct appeal)