Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah appellate courts review guilty pleas without a timely withdrawal motion? State v. Stone Explained
Summary
Jerod Stone appealed his convictions for aggravated kidnapping and robbery after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement. Stone failed to file a motion to withdraw his guilty pleas before sentencing as required by Utah Code section 77-13-6. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and rejected Stone’s constitutional challenge to the statutory withdrawal requirements.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Jerod Stone entered guilty pleas to charges of aggravated kidnapping and robbery pursuant to a plea agreement. The district court warned Stone during the plea colloquy that any request to withdraw his guilty pleas must be made before sentencing. Stone did not file a motion to withdraw his pleas and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He then filed a direct appeal challenging his convictions on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and claiming the district court committed plain error in accepting his guilty pleas.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the Utah Court of Appeals had subject matter jurisdiction to review Stone’s challenges to his guilty pleas when he failed to comply with Utah Code section 77-13-6’s requirement to move for withdrawal before sentencing. Stone also raised a constitutional challenge, arguing that section 77-13-6 violates the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel because post-conviction remedies do not guarantee appointed counsel.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals held that it lacked jurisdiction to review Stone’s claims. Utah Code section 77-13-6 creates a jurisdictional bar on late-filed motions to withdraw guilty pleas, requiring any challenge to be pursued through post-conviction relief under the PCRA and Rule 65C. The court rejected Stone’s constitutional challenge, following precedent from State v. Merrill and State v. Rhinehart that section 77-13-6 provides adequate procedural safeguards by offering two opportunities to challenge guilty pleas: timely withdrawal motions and post-conviction proceedings.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the critical importance of filing motions to withdraw guilty pleas before sentencing to preserve appellate review. Defense counsel must be vigilant about statutory deadlines, as failure to comply extinguishes the right to challenge plea validity on direct appeal. Practitioners should note that ineffective assistance claims cannot circumvent the jurisdictional bar—such claims must be raised through post-conviction proceedings if the withdrawal deadline is missed. The ruling also confirms that Utah’s statutory scheme for plea challenges satisfies constitutional due process requirements.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Stone
Citation
2013 UT App 148
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20110818-CA
Date Decided
June 13, 2013
Outcome
Dismissed
Holding
Utah Code section 77-13-6 creates a jurisdictional bar preventing appellate review of guilty plea validity when a defendant fails to move for withdrawal before sentencing, and this statutory scheme does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law including subject matter jurisdiction and constitutional challenges to statutes
Practice Tip
Always file motions to withdraw guilty pleas before sentencing to preserve appellate jurisdiction; post-conviction relief under the PCRA is the only remedy for late challenges to plea validity.
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.