The One-Year Deadline for Utah PCRA Petitions: When the Clock Starts and What You Can Do About It

The most consequential procedural requirement in Utah post-conviction practice is not the content of the petition — it is the filing deadline. Under Utah Code § 78B-9-107, a PCRA petition must be filed within one year of the applicable triggering event. The statute is strictly enforced. A petition filed one day late on a ground that was available earlier is dismissed as untimely, regardless of how meritorious the underlying claim may be.

Understanding exactly when the clock starts — and what alternative triggering events exist for claims that could not have been discovered earlier — is the starting point for any PCRA timeliness analysis.

---

The Four Triggering Events

Utah Code § 78B-9-107 provides that the one-year period runs from the latest of four possible triggering events:

1. The last action taken by a state or federal appellate court affirming the conviction or sentence.

This is the standard trigger for most PCRA petitions. When the Utah Court of Appeals affirms the conviction on direct appeal, the one-year clock starts on the date of that decision. If the defendant petitioned the Utah Supreme Court for certiorari and was denied, the clock starts on the date of that denial. If certiorari was granted and the Supreme Court affirmed, the clock starts on the date of that affirmance.

Critically, the clock does not start from the date the direct appeal was filed — it starts from the last appellate court action. And it does not restart each time a new step in the direct appeal process is taken; it runs from the final action that concludes the direct appeal entirely.

2. The issuance of a new rule of constitutional law made retroactively applicable to post-conviction cases.

When the United States Supreme Court or the Utah Supreme Court announces a new rule of constitutional law — a decision that changes what the Constitution requires in criminal proceedings — and that rule applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, a new one-year window opens from the date the rule was recognized. This exception is narrow: not every new Supreme Court decision opens a new PCRA window. The rule must be both newly recognized and specifically held to apply retroactively to cases on collateral (post-conviction) review.

Decisions that typically qualify as retroactive under this exception include watershed rules of criminal procedure and substantive rules that make certain conduct categorically exempt from punishment — such as Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which held mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders unconstitutional, and which the Supreme Court later held retroactive in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. 190 (2016).

3. The date on which the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence.

This is the most important exception for petitioners whose claims arise from evidence that emerged after the conviction. When the factual basis for a PCRA claim — a recanting witness, newly obtained documentary evidence, post-conviction investigation results, Brady material discovered through a GRAMA request — was not and could not have been discovered before the standard one-year window closed, the clock starts from the date the petitioner could have discovered those facts with reasonable diligence.

This exception does not reset the clock to whenever the petitioner actually discovered the evidence. It resets it to when the petitioner could have discovered the evidence with reasonable diligence. A petitioner who sat on evidence available to them for years before filing will not benefit from this exception — the due diligence requirement is real and courts apply it carefully.

4. Any other applicable time limit established by federal law.

This provision addresses the interaction between the Utah PCRA and federal habeas corpus proceedings, where AEDPA’s separate one-year limitation period may toll or otherwise affect the state filing deadline in narrow circumstances.

---

What “Due Diligence” Requires

The due-diligence standard is the most litigated timeliness question in Utah PCRA practice. Courts ask not when the petitioner actually discovered the new facts, but when a reasonable person exercising appropriate diligence would have discovered them.

Factors courts evaluate:

• Whether the petitioner made any effort to investigate after conviction
• Whether counsel was retained for post-conviction investigation and what that investigation produced
• Whether the facts were publicly available through court records, news coverage, or other accessible sources
• Whether the petitioner was informed of events that should have prompted further inquiry but failed to follow up

A petitioner who does nothing to investigate for years and then discovers evidence that was available all along will generally not satisfy the due-diligence exception. A petitioner who consistently sought information through appropriate channels — written requests, counsel engagement, records requests — and only recently received responsive materials that constitute newly discovered evidence is in a much stronger position.

---

What Happens If the Deadline Is Missed

Unlike most civil statutes of limitations, the PCRA’s one-year deadline carries no equitable tolling exception for lack of access to counsel, incarceration conditions, unfamiliarity with the law, or good-faith mistake about when the deadline ran. Utah courts have consistently held that these circumstances — however sympathetic — do not excuse an untimely filing.

This is one of the starkest differences between Utah state PCRA practice and federal habeas corpus practice under AEDPA, which does allow equitable tolling in limited circumstances when the petitioner demonstrates extraordinary circumstances that prevented timely filing and that they pursued their rights diligently.

The practical consequence: petitioners who believe they have viable PCRA claims should consult with appellate counsel immediately after the direct appeal concludes. Waiting to see whether new evidence might develop, or deferring while other priorities take precedence, risks permanently foreclosing viable claims when the one-year window closes.

---

The Deadline and the Single-Petition Rule Together

The interaction between the one-year deadline and the PCRA’s single-petition rule creates an important strategic tension: the petitioner must file within the deadline and must include all available claims in a single petition. Filing quickly with incomplete claim development risks a poorly supported petition that gets summarily dismissed. Filing slowly while developing every claim risks missing the deadline.

The practical solution is to begin claim development and investigation as early as possible — ideally before the direct appeal concludes — so that when the post-appeal one-year window opens, the petition is as fully developed as the timeline allows.

---

KEY RULE

Utah Code § 78B-9-107 — Timeliness Requirements

A PCRA petition must be filed within one year of: the last appellate court action affirming the conviction; a retroactively applicable new constitutional rule; or the date the facts supporting the claim could have been discovered through due diligence. The deadline is strictly enforced with no equitable tolling. The due-diligence clock starts when facts could have been discovered, not when they were. Missing the deadline permanently bars claims that were available within the window. See Lotus’s URAP filing deadlines reference for related appellate timelines.

---

If You Are Approaching or Have Passed the Deadline

Contact appellate counsel immediately. If the standard one-year window is still open, every day of delay risks losing it. If the standard window has closed, the analysis shifts to whether a newly discovered facts exception applies — whether evidence exists that could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence. Lotus Appellate Law evaluates PCRA timeliness questions throughout Utah. Contact us to determine whether a viable window remains open in your case.