Utah Supreme Court
State v. Robinson
December 7, 2023540 P.3d 614
Summary
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Robinson’s motion to correct his sentence under rule 22(e). It held that the current rule provides an exhaustive list of grounds for sentence correction, and Robinson’s ineffective-assistance and favorable-evidence-suppression claims fit neither the enumerated categories nor the rule’s limited provision for subsequently established constitutional rules. The court also held that the district court properly treated the filing as a rule 22(e) motion and declined to consider additional issues presented through an impermissible hybrid Anders brief.
Holding
- Cognizability of Robinson’s claims under rule 22(e). The current version of rule 22(e) does not authorize correction of a sentence based on ineffective assistance of counsel or suppression of favorable evidence where those claims do not fall within one of the six enumerated categories and do not rely on a constitutional rule or ruling established after the sentence became final.
- Characterization of Robinson’s filing. The district court properly construed Robinson’s filing as a rule 22(e) motion rather than as a petition for post-conviction relief.
- Hybrid Anders briefing. An appellate brief is procedurally improper when counsel advocates nonfrivolous issues while simultaneously presenting additional issues under the Anders framework, because that framework applies only when counsel concludes that the appeal is wholly frivolous and seeks permission to withdraw.
Docket Case No. 20210293