Can Utah courts dismiss factual innocence petitions based on witness recantations? Wamsley v. State Explained

In Wamsley v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may dismiss petitions for factual innocence without holding evidentiary hearings. The case provides important guidance for practitioners navigating Utah’s post-conviction relief procedures involving witness recantations.

Background and Facts

Wamsley entered Alford pleas to two counts of sexual abuse of a child involving his daughters. Five years later, he filed a petition for postconviction relief alleging factual innocence. The petition was supported solely by an affidavit from his younger daughter stating she had “repeatedly declared that my father has never touched me inappropriately or in any of my private areas.” The State moved to dismiss, submitting counter-affidavits from the older daughter and mother reaffirming the abuse occurred.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court properly dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing under Utah Code section 78B-9-402(4), which allows dismissal when a conviction was based on a guilty plea and the petition relies solely on recantation that appears “equivocal or self-serving.” Wamsley argued the court improperly weighed evidence rather than accepting his allegations as true under rule 12(b)(6) standards.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that subsection 78B-9-402(4) creates a different standard from rule 12(b)(6) when convictions are based on guilty pleas and evidence depends on witness recantations. The court found the daughter’s affidavit equivocal because it failed to specifically deny the conduct underlying the conviction and provided no explanation for the inconsistency with her prior detailed statements to police. The affidavit’s language about “inappropriate” touching and “private areas” was ambiguous and didn’t necessarily contradict her earlier descriptions of the father’s specific actions.

Practice Implications

This decision establishes that Utah’s Factual Innocence Statute allows courts to conduct probing reviews of witness recantations rather than simply accepting allegations as true. For factual innocence petitions to survive dismissal, recantations must be unequivocal and directly address the specific conduct underlying the conviction. Practitioners should ensure recanting witnesses explicitly acknowledge their prior statements and provide clear explanations for the change in testimony. The decision also confirms that impeachment evidence alone cannot establish a “bona fide and compelling issue of factual innocence” required for evidentiary hearings.