Utah Court of Appeals
Must a defendant prove they would have appealed to obtain reinstatement of appeal time? State v. Collins Explained
Summary
Collins was convicted of murder and aggravated robbery but did not timely appeal after being inadequately advised about appeal deadlines. The trial court denied his motion to reinstate the time to appeal, and the Court of Appeals reversed.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Collins, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a criminal defendant must prove they would have appealed if properly informed to obtain reinstatement of appeal time under Manning v. State.
Background and Facts
Collins was convicted of murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. At sentencing, the trial court failed to advise Collins of his right to appeal as required by Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(c)(1). Defense counsel did advise Collins of his right to appeal and encouraged him to appeal, but crucially failed to inform Collins that a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days. Collins twice told his attorney he did not want to appeal, and no timely appeal was filed. Over two years later, Collins sought reinstatement of the time to appeal, arguing unconstitutional deprivation of his right to appeal.
Key Legal Issues
The court examined whether a defendant seeking reinstatement of appeal time under Manning must prove not only that they were uninformed of their appeal rights, but also that they would have appealed if properly informed. The State argued that Collins had to show prejudice by demonstrating he would have filed a timely appeal but for the inadequate advice.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals held that properly advising a defendant of appeal rights includes informing them of both the right to appeal and the time deadline for filing. Since neither the court nor counsel properly advised Collins of the thirty-day deadline, he was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal. Significantly, the court rejected the State’s argument that Collins must prove he would have appealed if properly informed, finding this approach inconsistent with Manning and Utah Supreme Court precedent in State v. Alexander.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that defense counsel must provide complete information about appeal rights, including specific deadlines, not just the existence of the right to appeal. The ruling also establishes that defendants need not engage in speculative “but for” analysis to obtain relief when improperly advised about their constitutional right to appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Collins
Citation
2013 UT App 42
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110164-CA
Date Decided
February 22, 2013
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A defendant who has not been properly informed by either court or counsel of his appeal rights, including the time within which the notice of appeal must be filed, is entitled to reinstatement of the appeal time without showing that he would have appealed if properly informed.
Standard of Review
Correctness for legal conclusions
Practice Tip
When advising criminal defendants of appeal rights, defense counsel must include both the right to appeal and the specific thirty-day deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
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.