The Procedural Bar in Utah PCRA Proceedings: When Claims Are Blocked and What You Can Do About It

The procedural bar is the most significant limitation on Utah PCRA petitions — and the one that catches petitioners most off guard. Under Utah Code § 78B-9-106, the PCRA cannot grant relief on any claim that was raised and adjudicated at trial or on direct appeal, or that could have been raised but was not — regardless of how meritorious the claim might be on its merits.

Understanding which claims are barred, which are not, and what exceptions exist for overcoming the bar is one of the most important analytical tasks in post-conviction practice.

---

The Three Categories of Barred Claims

Category 1: Claims Raised and Decided Against the Petitioner

If an issue was fully litigated — raised at trial, addressed in the direct appeal brief, and decided by the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court — it cannot be relitigated in a PCRA petition. The doctrine of res judicata applies. A suppression issue decided against the defendant on direct appeal does not get a second look in the PCRA because the petitioner believes the court reached the wrong result.

This category is absolute. No exception exists for claims that were fully adjudicated below, regardless of how compelling the argument is or how clearly the appellate court may have erred. The remedy for a wrong decision on direct appeal is a petition for certiorari to the Utah Supreme Court — not a PCRA petition.

Category 2: Claims That Could Have Been Raised But Were Not

The most consequential and most litigated bar is the “could have been raised” prong. Under § 78B-9-106(1)(c), a claim is barred if it could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal but was not — unless the failure to raise it was due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The critical question is what “could have been raised” means. The test is objective: could a competent attorney, with the information available at the time, have identified and raised this legal argument? If yes, the claim is barred even if the specific petitioner and their actual counsel did not think of it. The bar is not an invitation to argue that this particular attorney didn’t know about the argument — it is an inquiry into whether the argument was available to be made by a reasonably competent practitioner.

Category 3: Claims Raised in a Prior PCRA Petition

When a petitioner has already filed a PCRA petition that was decided, a subsequent petition raising the same claims is barred. The PCRA is intended to provide one comprehensive post-conviction proceeding — not a series of successive petitions relitigating the same issues.

---

The Most Important Exception: IAC as a Gateway

The procedural bar expressly does not apply when the failure to raise the barred claim was itself caused by ineffective assistance of counsel — either trial counsel (who failed to preserve the issue at trial) or appellate counsel (who failed to raise the issue on direct appeal).

This exception is the most powerful tool for overcoming the procedural bar. It works in two ways:

Direct IAC claim. Rather than trying to raise the underlying constitutional issue directly, the petitioner frames it as an IAC claim: “Trial counsel failed to file a suppression motion on this Fourth Amendment issue, which constitutes deficient performance, and the failure prejudiced the defense.” This claim is not barred because IAC claims are expressly cognizable in the PCRA and are specifically recognized as overcoming the procedural bar for claims that should have been raised below.

IAC of appellate counsel as gateway. When an issue was available on direct appeal but appellate counsel failed to raise it, a PCRA petition alleging IAC of appellate counsel — and claiming the underlying issue would have succeeded — is the appropriate vehicle. The PCRA is the only proceeding where IAC of appellate counsel can be raised. See Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel in Utah for the full analysis.

---

Other Exceptions to the Procedural Bar

Evidence genuinely unavailable before. Claims that could not have been raised earlier because the factual basis for them was not available — Brady material that was suppressed, newly discovered evidence that could not have been found with due diligence — are not barred by the could-have-been-raised doctrine because the claim literally could not have been asserted without the information now available.

New constitutional rules applied retroactively. When the United States Supreme Court announces a new constitutional rule and makes it retroactive to cases on collateral review, a PCRA petition can be filed to raise that new claim within one year of the decision — even if the issue was not raised at trial or on appeal, because the legal basis for the claim did not exist until the new decision.

Force, fraud, or coercion. Under § 78B-9-106(b), the procedural bar does not apply to claims that were not raised because of force, fraud, or coercion as defined in Utah Code § 76-5-308 — an exception addressing truly extraordinary circumstances where the petitioner was prevented from raising the issue by wrongful conduct of another.

Actual innocence. While not explicitly an exception to the procedural bar in the Utah statute, the doctrine recognized in federal habeas proceedings — that a compelling actual innocence showing can overcome procedural bars to allow courts to reach otherwise barred claims — may provide an additional avenue in appropriate cases.

---

Strategic Implications: Why the Procedural Bar Shapes PCRA Strategy

The procedural bar has profound implications for how PCRA petitions must be structured:

All available claims must be raised in the first petition. Because a second PCRA petition faces both the procedural bar for claims available when the first was filed and the extreme difficulty of persuading a court to reopen concluded proceedings, the initial PCRA petition must identify and raise every viable ground. A petitioner who raises only the strongest claim and saves others for later risks permanently losing those other claims.

The bar must be addressed affirmatively. A petition that does not acknowledge and address the procedural bar for each claim risks summary dismissal. For each claim, the petition should explain either why it is not barred (it was not raised before because it genuinely could not have been) or why the IAC exception applies (counsel’s deficient performance caused the failure to raise it).

IAC framing often permits relief on issues that would otherwise be barred. When the underlying issue is strong but the direct procedural path to raising it is blocked by the bar, reframing the claim as IAC of trial or appellate counsel is often the correct strategy — not as a workaround, but because counsel’s failure to raise a strong issue is itself the constitutional violation that the PCRA can remedy.

---

KEY RULE

Utah Code § 78B-9-106 — The Procedural Bar

The PCRA bars relief on claims that were raised and adjudicated at trial or on direct appeal, or that could have been raised but were not — unless the failure was caused by IAC, by evidence genuinely unavailable before, by a retroactive new constitutional rule, or by force, fraud, or coercion. The bar is the most significant limitation on PCRA petitions and must be addressed affirmatively for each claim. IAC framing is often the correct vehicle for claims that would otherwise be barred. All available claims must be raised in the first petition to avoid the bar in subsequent proceedings.

---

Mapping the Procedural Bar to Your Specific Claims

The analysis is claim-by-claim: for each potential ground, was it raised and decided against you (barred), could it have been raised by competent counsel (barred unless IAC caused the omission), or was it genuinely unavailable (not barred)? This mapping is the first step in every PCRA evaluation. Lotus Appellate Law performs this analysis for every post-conviction client throughout Utah. Contact us to determine which of your potential claims are viable.