 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lucero v. Kennard11/15/2005
On Certiorari to the Utah Court of Appeals
INTRODUCTION
In this case, we are asked to consider whether the Post-Conviction Remedies Act ("PCRA") allows collateral attacks on a justice court conviction when the defendant has failed to seek a trial de novo. The court of appeals concluded that the failure to seek a trial de novo bars a justice court defendant from obtaining post-conviction relief. We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion. We now affirm.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Benjamin Frank Lucero was charged in the Murray City Municipal Justice Court with driving under the influence of alcohol, Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-44 (Supp. 2004), and improper usage of lanes, id. § 41-6-61 (1998). Although the pre-trial conference was continued twice so that Lucero could retain private counsel, Lucero ultimately represented himself throughout the proceedings at the justice court. At the justice court hearing, Lucero pleaded guilty to driving under the influence, and the court dismissed the charge of improper lane usage. The justice court subsequently fined Lucero $1,850 and sentenced him to 180 days in jail and eighteen months' probation. After sentencing, the court found Lucero to be impecunious.
Lucero subsequently filed a "Petition for Post-Conviction Relief or, in the alternative, a Motion to Correct Illegally Imposed Sentence" in both the Murray Justice Court and the Third District Court. In his petition, Lucero argued that his sentence was imposed in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The district court, acting in an appellate capacity, held a hearing to address Lucero's claims and, after considering proffered testimony from the justice court judge, affidavits from the justice court clerks, and testimony from Lucero, concluded that no Sixth Amendment violation had occurred. Accordingly, the district court dismissed Lucero's petition. Lucero filed a timely appeal with the court of appeals to review the district court's order.
In reviewing the district court's decision, the court of appeals did not examine whether Lucero had effectively waived his right to counsel at the justice court proceeding, but instead affirmed the district court on the ground that Lucero was ineligible for post-conviction relief because he failed to seek a trial de novo in the district court before seeking post- conviction relief. Lucero v. Kennard, 2004 UT App 4, 13, 89 P.3d 175. The court of appeals reasoned that any violation of Lucero's constitutional right to counsel could have been remedied by a trial de novo and, by failing to pursue that remedy, Lucero was both procedurally barred from receiving post-conviction relief and ineligible for the "unusual circumstances" exception to the procedural bar rules. Id. 12. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78-2-2(3)(a) (2002).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
On certiorari, we review the court of appeals' decision for correctness, giving its conclusions of law no deference. State v. Geukgeuzian, 2004 UT 16, 7, 86 P.3d 742.
ANALYSIS
The issue in this case is whether Lucero is eligible for post-conviction relief. To address this issue we must determine (1) whether the PCRA applies to justice court defendants and, if so, (2) whether Lucero is entitled to post-conviction relief despite his failure to seek a trial de novo to appeal his justice court sentence. We conclude that the PCRA applies to justice court defendants, but that Lucero is not entitled to post-conviction relief because he failed to seek a trial de novo.
By filing a post-conviction petition, a defendant seeks to collaterally attack a convic
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Utah DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|