State v. Robinson
State v. Robinson, 2023 UT 25 (Pohlman, J.)
Fourteen years after pleading guilty to aggravated murder and child abuse, a defendant moved the district court to correct what he claimed was an unconstitutional sentence under rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. The defendant asserted that his counsel had been ineffective and that the State had suppressed favorable evidence. The district court denied his motion stating that his claims were not cognizable under rule 22(e). The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding:
- The plain language of rule 22(e) does not allow for the type of claim the defendant raised.
- Practice tip:It is procedurally improper for appellate counsel to file a hybrid-Anders brief, simultaneously seeking review of both frivolous and nonfrivolous issues