Does nunc pro tunc resentencing extend the time to withdraw guilty pleas? Grimmett v. State Explained

The Utah Supreme Court addressed a critical timing question in Grimmett v. State, determining whether a nunc pro tunc resentencing order reopens the filing window for motions to withdraw guilty pleas under Utah Code section 77-13-6(2)(b).

Background and Facts

Adolph Grimmett pled guilty to reduced charges in March 2003 following his attorney’s advice that his ethnicity and the high-profile Elizabeth Smart case would negatively affect his trial prospects. After sentencing, Grimmett complained that his counsel failed to file an appeal despite his requests. The court of appeals dismissed his subsequent appeal as untimely. In January 2005, the district court ordered that Grimmett be resentenced nunc pro tunc pursuant to State v. Johnson to restore his appeal rights. Before the actual resentencing, Grimmett filed a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas, which the district court denied as jurisdictionally barred.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether the Johnson nunc pro tunc resentencing remedy permits a defendant to file a motion to withdraw guilty pleas under section 77-13-6(2)(b), which requires such motions be made “before sentence is announced.” The court analyzed both the 1989 and 2003 versions of the statute, as Grimmett’s case spanned the statutory amendment.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court emphasized that the Johnson remedy has a “limited scope and purpose” – solely to restore the constitutional right to appeal. The remedy does not provide “another opportunity to present postconviction motions.” The court distinguished between resentencing orders designed to cure appeal defects and those that would permit additional substantive motions. Under both versions of section 77-13-6(2)(b), Grimmett’s motion was untimely, filed twenty-two months after his original sentencing and well after the jurisdictional deadlines.

Practice Implications

This decision clarifies that nunc pro tunc resentencing cannot cure jurisdictional timing defects for withdrawal motions. Practitioners must file motions to withdraw guilty pleas before sentencing under current law. The court noted that untimely challenges must be pursued under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act and Rule 65C, providing an alternative avenue for relief while maintaining strict jurisdictional requirements for direct challenges.