Utah Law Developments

• Publication year: 2024
• Citation: Vol. 37 No. 2 Pg. 33
• Pages: 33

Utah Law DevelopmentsVol. 37 No. 2 Pg. 33Utah Bar JournalMarch 2024

Appellate Highlights

by Rodney R. Parker, Dani Cepernich, Robert Cummings, Nathaniel Mitchell, and Andrew Roth

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following appellate cases of interest were recently decided by the Utah Supreme Court, Utah Court of Appeals, and United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. The following summaries have been prepared by the authoring attorneys listed above, who are solely responsible for their content.

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Robinson

2023 UT 25 (Dec. 7, 2023)

Robinson filed a motion to correct sentence under Rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing his sentence was unconstitutional because his trial counsel was ineffective, among other reasons. On appeal from the district court's denial of Robinson's motion, the court of appeals held, as a matter of first impression, that the current version of Rule 22(e) cannot be used to challenge any purportedly illegal sentence, since district courts are only vested with authority to correct sentences falling under one of the six categories enumerated in the rule.

The court of appeals separately declined to reach additional issues identified by Robinson's appellate counsel with reference to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Anders established a "procedure to be followed when appointed counsel cannot identify a nonfrivolous issue for appeal and seeks to withdraw." Because Robinson's appellate counsel had identified nonfrivolous issues for appeal, he could not also raise ostensibly frivolous issues at his client's request underAnders.

State v. Valdez

2023 UT 26 (Dec. 14, 2023)

After being read his Miranda rights, Valdez refused to provide his cell phone's passcode to detectives looking for text messages with an alleged victim. The detectives were unable to gain access to the phone through other means. At trial, the prosecution elicited testimony regarding Valdez's refusal and argued to the jury that the refusal undercut one of Valdez's primary defenses. Valdez appealed his subsequent conviction, arguing the prosecution's commentary on his refusal to provide the passcode violated his Fifth Amendment rights. The supreme court agreed, vacating his conviction and holding that verbally providing a cell phone passcode to law enforcement after aMirandawarning amounts to a potentially incriminating testimonial act and triggers the protections of the Fifth Amendment.

...