Constitutional Violations in Utah PCRA Proceedings: What Can Be Raised and When

The first and broadest ground for PCRA relief under Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(a) is a conviction or sentence that violated the United States Constitution or the Utah Constitution. In theory, any constitutional violation that infected the trial or sentencing — Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment due process — qualifies. In practice, the ability to raise a constitutional claim in the PCRA depends heavily on whether the claim was raised on direct appeal and whether the procedural bar blocks its relitigation.

This post explains which constitutional claims are most viable in PCRA proceedings, when the procedural bar applies, and what distinguishes claims that can be raised post-conviction from those that are effectively foreclosed.

---

The Procedural Bar and Constitutional Claims

The most important limitation on constitutional claims in PCRA proceedings is the procedural bar under Utah Code § 78B-9-106: claims that were raised and adjudicated on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a PCRA petition, and claims that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not are generally barred — unless the failure to raise them was itself caused by ineffective assistance of counsel.

This bar has significant consequences for constitutional claims:

Claims raised and lost on direct appeal. A Fourth Amendment suppression argument that was fully briefed and decided against the defendant on direct appeal cannot be relitigated in a PCRA petition. The doctrine of res judicata applies: the issue was adjudicated, and the PCRA is not an opportunity to try the same argument before a different court.

Claims available at trial but not raised. A defendant who was convicted after a trial where an obvious constitutional violation occurred — an unlawful search, a Miranda violation, a Confrontation Clause error — but whose trial counsel did not object and whose appellate counsel did not raise the issue, faces the argument that the claim was available but waived. The primary exception is when the failure to raise the claim was itself caused by ineffective assistance of counsel (either trial or appellate), which is independently cognizable as an IAC claim.

Claims genuinely unavailable at trial or on direct appeal. Constitutional claims that could not have been raised before — typically Brady violations where the evidence was suppressed, Giglio violations where cooperation agreements were undisclosed, and due process claims based on evidence that surfaced post-conviction — are not procedurally barred because the claim literally could not have been asserted with the information available at the time.

---

Fourth Amendment Claims in PCRA Proceedings

Fourth Amendment claims — unlawful searches and seizures, suppression of evidence obtained illegally — face the most significant procedural hurdles in PCRA proceedings. If the suppression issue was litigated at trial and on direct appeal, the PCRA cannot revisit it. If it was not raised, the procedural bar applies unless IAC caused the omission.

The most viable Fourth Amendment claim in a PCRA petition is typically an IAC claim: trial counsel failed to file a suppression motion that would have succeeded, and that failure prejudiced the defense. This frames the constitutional issue as an IAC ground rather than a direct Fourth Amendment claim — bypassing the procedural bar by challenging counsel’s omission rather than the underlying constitutional violation directly.

---

Fifth Amendment Claims: Miranda, Self-Incrimination, and Brady

Fifth Amendment claims in the PCRA context split into two categories:

Miranda and voluntariness. If trial counsel failed to move to suppress a statement obtained in violation of Miranda or through coercion, and that failure constitutes IAC, the constitutional claim can be raised through the IAC ground. If the issue was litigated and lost on direct appeal, it is barred.

Brady violations. Brady claims — based on the prosecution’s suppression of exculpatory evidence — are the Fifth/Fourteenth Amendment constitutional claim most consistently available in PCRA proceedings. Because the suppressed evidence was, by definition, not available on direct appeal, Brady claims are typically not procedurally barred. They are covered in depth in Brady Violations in Utah Post-Conviction Proceedings.

---

Sixth Amendment Claims: Right to Counsel and Confrontation

IAC claims. The Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is the constitutional foundation of every IAC claim in PCRA proceedings. As discussed in Ineffective Assistance of Counsel in Utah PCRA Proceedings, IAC is the most litigated PCRA ground precisely because it is one of the few constitutional claims that survives the procedural bar — it could not have been raised on direct appeal in its fully developed form because the off-record evidence needed to prove it was not in the trial record.

Confrontation Clause violations. When testimonial hearsay was admitted without the defendant having the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, and that Confrontation Clause violation was not properly raised on direct appeal, the claim faces the procedural bar. If it was raised and lost, it is barred from relitigation. The primary avenue is again IAC of appellate counsel — if competent appellate counsel would have raised the Confrontation Clause argument and it would have succeeded, that failure supports an IAC of appellate counsel claim in the PCRA.

---

Fourteenth Amendment: Due Process Claims

Due process claims in PCRA proceedings most commonly arise in three contexts:

Brady violations. Prosecutorial suppression of material exculpatory evidence is a due process violation under Brady, and as discussed, these claims are generally not procedurally barred.

False testimony. When the prosecution knowingly permitted false testimony — from a witness who has since recanted or who was knowingly lying about a cooperation agreement — and that false testimony was material, the due process violation under Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), provides a standalone PCRA ground. Like Brady violations, these claims typically could not have been raised before the false testimony came to light.

Retroactive application of new constitutional rules. When the United States Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule and applies it retroactively to cases on collateral review, a PCRA petition can be filed within one year of that decision to raise the new constitutional claim — even if the issue was not litigated at trial or on direct appeal. This is the § 78B-9-107(2)(b) timeliness exception in action.

---

KEY RULE

Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(a) — Constitutional Violations

Constitutional violations of the U.S. or Utah Constitutions are cognizable PCRA grounds, but availability depends heavily on the procedural bar: claims raised and lost on direct appeal are barred from relitigation; claims that could have been raised but weren’t are barred unless IAC caused the failure. Brady violations and claims based on evidence unavailable at trial are generally not barred. Retroactive new constitutional rules open a one-year window under § 78B-9-107(2)(b). IAC of trial or appellate counsel is often the correct framing for constitutional claims that face procedural bar problems.

---

Assessing Which Constitutional Claims Survive the Bar

The analysis requires mapping every potential constitutional claim against the procedural bar: was it raised and decided against you on direct appeal (barred), could it have been raised but wasn’t without excuse (barred), or was it genuinely unavailable before because of suppressed evidence, new law, or a complete inability to raise it in the prior proceedings (not barred)? Lotus Appellate Law performs this analysis as part of every PCRA evaluation. Contact us to assess what constitutional claims remain available in your case.