Bevan v. State
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 84 (Christiansen Forster, J.)
Two years after Bevan entered a guilty plea and was sentenced, he raised claims for post-conviction relief that were dismissed by the district court as time barred. He subsequently filed a motion asking the district court to reinstate his time for direct appeal (a Manning motion), which the district court did. But the court of appeals ruled that his challenge to his guilty plea must be raised in a post-conviction proceeding. Bevan then filed the petition for post-conviction relief giving rise to this appeal. The district court ruled the petition was procedurally barred, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The post-conviction relief act precludes a petitioner from raising any claim that “was raised or addressed” or “could have been . . . raised” in the trial court, on appeal, or in previous request for post-conviction relief. Utah Code § 78B-9-106(b)–(d). In this context, “raised” is interpreted to mean that a claim is “introduced to the court for review”—regardless of whether the court is able to review the claim on the merits. Here, the district court correctly dismissed the petition as procedurally barred because the claims were “raised” or “could have been . . . raised” in the untimely 2010 filing.