Winward v. State
355 P.3d 1022
Utah2015Background
- Winward was convicted in 1997 of multiple sexual offenses; conviction and direct appeal were final in 1997.
- In 2009 he filed a PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to inform him of a pretrial plea offer. The district court dismissed most claims as time-barred.
- On first appeal this Court affirmed dismissal generally but remanded to allow a limited claim under Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye (U.S. Supreme Court decisions issued in 2012) to be raised under Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(f).
- On remand the State moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing (1) Lafler/Frye do not qualify as a PCRA "new-rule" because they were not "dictated by precedent" when Winward’s conviction became final, and (2) the petition failed to plead facts sufficient under Lafler/Frye.
- The district court dismissed Winward’s Lafler/Frye claim on the ground that those cases do not satisfy § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(i). This appeal followed.
- The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed: Lafler and Frye did not announce a rule "dictated by precedent" as required by the PCRA, so they do not create a new cause of action; the Court also declined to reach the alternative pleading-sufficiency argument and referred appellant’s counsel to professional conduct authorities for misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Winward) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lafler and Frye create a new PCRA cause of action under Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(f) | Lafler/Frye announced a rule allowing plea-stage ineffective-assistance claims and thus qualify as post-final Supreme Court rules permitting a new PCRA petition | Lafler/Frye announced a new rule not "dictated by precedent" existing when conviction became final, so § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(i) is not satisfied | Held for State: Lafler/Frye were not "dictated by precedent," so they do not give rise to a § 78B-9-104(1)(f) claim; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the court should assess the sufficiency of Winward’s factual allegations under Lafler/Frye on 12(b)(6) | Winward urged that his petition and attached affidavits suffice to state a Lafler/Frye claim | State urged dismissal for failure to plead facts meeting Lafler/Frye elements | Not reached: Court declined to decide because statutory ground disposed of the case and the procedural question whether attachments should be considered on 12(b)(6) was inadequately briefed |
| Scope of remand and consideration of additional arguments raised by new counsel | Winward (new counsel) advanced broad constitutional and policy claims (e.g., plea-stage primacy; rights to information; invalidity of indeterminate sentences) | State argued remand was narrow and limited to whether Lafler/Frye apply and are "dictated by precedent" | Held for State: Court refused to consider the broader, out-of-scope arguments as irrelevant and procedurally improper; disciplined-counsel referral made |
| Standard for whether a Supreme Court decision creates a PCRA "new-rule" under § 78B-9-104(1)(f) | Winward argued Lafler/Frye should be read as governed by prior precedent and thus retroactive under Teague-derived standard | State argued (and Court applied) that § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(i) incorporates the Teague "dictated by precedent" test and requires the decision to be dictated by pre-existing precedent | Held: § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(i) adopts the Teague "dictated by precedent" standard; Lafler/Frye fail that test |
Key Cases Cited
- Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (establishes "dictated by precedent" test for retroactivity on collateral review)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (U.S. 2012) (announced remedy for plea-stage ineffective assistance but not found by UT Supreme Court to be "dictated by precedent")
- Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (U.S. 2012) (companion case about counsel’s failure to convey plea offers)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes ineffective-assistance prejudice standard)
- Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (applies Strickland prejudice in guilty-plea context)