Utah Court of Appeals
Can a successful rule 22(e) motion restart the deadline for withdrawing a guilty plea? State v. Smith Explained
Summary
Defendant sought to withdraw a guilty plea entered in 1997 when he filed a motion in 2007, ten years after the thirty-day statutory deadline. The district court denied the motion as untimely, and defendant argued that his successful rule 22(e) resentencing motion somehow restarted the deadline for withdrawing his plea.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In 1997, defendant Shawn Michael Smith pled guilty to aggravated robbery after breaking into an elderly couple’s home, binding them with duct tape and chains, and stealing their belongings. Almost immediately after entering his plea, Smith attempted to withdraw it, but the trial court denied his motion. Smith was sentenced to five years to life in prison, and this court affirmed his conviction on appeal.
Years later, Smith filed a successful rule 22(e) motion for resentencing, arguing his original sentence was illegal due to procedural errors. The court vacated his sentence and resentenced him. Prior to resentencing, Smith again moved to withdraw his guilty plea, which the court denied as untimely and barred by res judicata.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Smith’s successful rule 22(e) motion for resentencing restarted the thirty-day statutory deadline under Utah Code section 77-13-6(2)(b) for filing a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Smith filed his second withdrawal motion ten years after entering his original plea, far beyond the statutory window.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals applied correctness review to questions of law regarding timeliness and jurisdiction. The court held that rule 22(e), which allows correction of illegal sentences “at any time,” cannot be used as a veiled attempt to challenge the underlying conviction. Citing State v. Candedo and Grimmett v. State, the court explained that successful resentencing under rule 22(e) does not provide defendants with new opportunities to challenge their cases in ways unrelated to sentencing.
The court also affirmed that Smith’s plea waived all non-jurisdictional challenges to his conviction, including his belated claim regarding defects in the charging information.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies the limited scope of rule 22(e) relief and reinforces strict adherence to statutory deadlines for challenging guilty pleas. Practitioners should clearly distinguish between sentencing issues appropriate for rule 22(e) motions and conviction challenges that require timely filing under other procedural rules. The ruling also demonstrates how res judicata principles prevent repetitive challenges to the same legal issues.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Smith
Citation
2012 UT App 247
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20090195-CA
Date Decided
August 30, 2012
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A successful motion under rule 22(e) to correct an illegal sentence does not restart the thirty-day deadline for filing a motion to withdraw a guilty plea or provide jurisdiction to consider otherwise untimely motions to withdraw.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding timeliness and jurisdiction of motions to withdraw guilty pleas
Practice Tip
When pursuing rule 22(e) motions for illegal sentences, clearly distinguish sentencing issues from conviction challenges, as successful resentencing does not provide new opportunities to attack the underlying plea or conviction.
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.