407 P.3d 1113
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2006 Wynn was charged in Utah with multiple felonies; he later pleaded guilty in federal court to mail fraud and was ordered to pay over $15 million restitution.
- Wynn and the State agreed he would plead to four state securities-fraud counts, serve any state sentence concurrent with federal time, and pay $100,000 at sentencing with final restitution to be determined.
- The State requested $782,068.63 restitution (naming 23 victims); Wynn did not object and the district court entered a restitution order for that amount in October 2008.
- After serving federal time, Wynn appeared before the Parole Board in 2013 and indicated the outstanding restitution balance of $682,068 sounded correct.
- In 2015 Wynn moved under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) to correct an illegal sentence (claiming ineffective assistance and excess restitution), alternatively under R. Crim. P. 30(b) for clerical correction, and under Civ. P. 60(b)(6); the district court denied all motions and discovery.
- Wynn appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting rule 22(e) and 30(b) relief and holding the 60(b) motion untimely and discovery improper for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sentence is "illegal" under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) because of ineffective assistance | State: Rule 22(e) relief is limited; procedural posture precludes relief | Wynn: Ineffective assistance rendered his sentence illegally imposed and subject to correction | Court: Denied — ineffective-assistance/as-applied claims not cognizable under Rule 22(e); sentence lawful on its face |
| Whether restitution amount was unconstitutional / incorrectly imposed under Rule 22(e) | State: Restitution order stands; Wynn agreed and later affirmed amounts | Wynn: Restitution exceeded legal responsibility and counsel failed to object | Court: Denied — ineffective-assistance claim fails on merits and Wynn cannot show prejudice; his prior agreements contradict now-asserted error |
| Whether restitution amount is a clerical error fixable under R. Crim. P. 30(b) | State: Amount reflects court’s intended restitution for listed victims and dismissed counts | Wynn: No agreement to pay victims for dismissed counts; entry inconsistent with parties’ intent | Held: Denied — error, if any, was judicial decision not clerical; record shows court intended the order |
| Whether Civ. P. 60(b)(6) relief is available and timely to set aside restitution order | State: Motion untimely and lacks diligence; finality interests weigh against relief | Wynn: Exceptional circumstances (ineffective assistance/default entry) justify relief | Court: Denied — 6+ year delay was unreasonable; district court did not abuse discretion in finding motion untimely and lacking diligence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (distinguishing clerical error from judicial error)
- State v. Houston, 353 P.3d 55 (Utah 2015) (Rule 22(e) permits facial constitutional attacks on sentence, not as-applied challenges)
- State v. Fairchild, 385 P.3d 696 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (analysis of sentence legality under Rule 22(e))
- State v. Yazzie, 203 P.3d 984 (Utah 2009) (definition of illegal sentence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard)
- Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (standard and timeliness considerations for Rule 60(b))
- State v. Perkins, 322 P.3d 1184 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (factors for determining clerical error)
- State v. Montoya, 825 P.2d 676 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (effect of a valid sentence on district court jurisdiction)