Washington v. State
Washington v. State, 2026 UT App 27 (Tenney, J.)
Criminal Law
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- A district court cannot dismiss a claim that could have been raised previously under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65C(h) because it is outside of the scope of the rule. To sua sponte dismiss a claim that could have been raised previously, the district court must act under Utah Code § 78B-9-106(2)(b), which requires giving the petitioner notice and an opportunity to be heard.
- When evaluating a postconviction petitioner’s request for counsel, a district court is only required to consider the two mandatory factors set forth in rule 65C(j); the additional factors outlined in Utah Code § 78B-9-109(2) are purely discretionary.
- To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on defective information, a petitioner must demonstrate actual prejudice.