Utah Supreme Court
When can Utah criminal defendants restore a denied right to appeal? Manning v. State Explained
Summary
Manning pled guilty with an express waiver of appeal rights but filed an untimely notice of appeal 57 days after sentencing. She petitioned for extraordinary relief claiming her attorney failed to inform her of her right to appeal.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In Manning v. State, the Utah Supreme Court fundamentally changed how criminal defendants can seek to restore their right to appeal when they fail to file a timely notice of appeal. This decision replaced the previous Johnson remedy with a new framework that provides narrow exceptions for defendants who can prove they were unconstitutionally deprived of their appeal rights.
Background and Facts
Carolyn Manning pled guilty to multiple felonies under a plea agreement that explicitly waived her right to appeal. During the plea colloquy, the court informed her that her right to appeal was “very limited.” Manning was sentenced on September 27, 2001, but filed a pro se notice of appeal fifty-seven days later, well beyond the thirty-day deadline. The district court dismissed her appeal as untimely. Manning then sought extraordinary relief, claiming her attorney failed to inform her she could appeal within thirty days of sentencing.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two critical questions: first, whether defendants must file separate civil actions under Rule 65C to restore appeal rights, and second, whether the state must prove a defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived the right to appeal before denying such relief.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court determined that changes to the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure and enactment of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act rendered the previous Johnson remedy obsolete. Instead, the court established a new procedure allowing defendants to file motions in the trial court for reinstatement of appeal rights under three narrow exceptions: (1) the defendant asked counsel to file an appeal but counsel failed to do so after agreeing; (2) the defendant diligently but unsuccessfully attempted to appeal within the time frame through no fault of their own; or (3) the court or counsel failed to properly advise the defendant of appeal rights.
Practice Implications
The Manning exceptions provide a safety net for defendants who were genuinely denied their constitutional right to appeal, but the burden remains on defendants to prove they qualify. Courts will presume defendants who fail to timely appeal have waived their rights, and simple neglect or misunderstanding of deadlines will not suffice for relief.
Case Details
Case Name
Manning v. State
Citation
2005 UT 61
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20040453
Date Decided
September 23, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A criminal defendant claiming denial of the right to appeal must file a motion in the trial court for reinstatement under narrow exceptions rather than seeking resentencing under the former Johnson remedy.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the court of appeals decision on certiorari, correctness for the district court’s denial of postconviction relief
Practice Tip
When a client fails to file a timely appeal, examine whether they fall within the three narrow Manning exceptions before advising that their appeal rights are waived.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.