Can defendants challenge ineffective appellate counsel through extraordinary relief petitions? State v. Rees Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important procedural question in State v. Rees, clarifying when and how defendants may challenge ineffective assistance of appellate counsel through post-conviction extraordinary relief petitions.

Background and Facts

After Rees’s criminal conviction for possession of marijuana with intent to distribute was affirmed on appeal, he filed a petition for extraordinary relief with his sentencing court. The petition essentially claimed that Rees had lost his opportunity for meaningful appellate review due to ineffective assistance of counsel. Notably, the same attorney who represented Rees at trial and on appeal was now arguing his own ineffectiveness. The trial court dismissed the petition, concluding it focused solely on issues previously adjudicated by the appellate court.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two critical questions: first, whether the trial court had jurisdiction over a petition filed under the original criminal case number rather than as a separate civil action under Rule 65C; and second, whether the claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel had been previously adjudicated.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that Rees’s petition was properly filed under Rule 65B(b) as a writ of error coram nobis with the sentencing court. The court explained that coram nobis is available in limited circumstances to modify or vacate a judgment where extra-record facts show constitutional deprivation. Because the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim was never presented to or ruled upon by the appellate court, the trial court erred in dismissing it as previously adjudicated. The court established a four-part test based on federal precedent for evaluating coram nobis petitions.

Practice Implications

This decision provides crucial guidance for practitioners handling post-conviction relief. When challenging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, file under Rule 65B(b) with the original sentencing court rather than initiating separate civil proceedings under Rule 65C. The court also highlighted potential ethical concerns when trial counsel argues their own ineffectiveness, urging review of Rule 1.7(b) regarding conflicts of interest.