Utah Supreme Court
Must defendants prove they would have appealed to get reinstated appeal rights? State v. Collins Explained
Summary
Collins failed to appeal his murder and aggravated robbery convictions within thirty days. Two years later, he sought reinstatement claiming neither the court nor counsel informed him of the deadline. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s denial, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that reinstatement claims require harmless error analysis.
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court in State v. Collins clarified the burden defendants face when seeking reinstatement of their right to appeal after missing the thirty-day deadline. The decision establishes that proving inadequate advice about appeal rights is only half the battle—defendants must also prove they would have actually appealed.
Background and Facts
Collins was convicted of murder and aggravated robbery but failed to appeal within thirty days. Neither the trial court nor his counsel informed him of the thirty-day deadline for filing an appeal, though counsel twice asked if he wanted to appeal and Collins declined. Two years later, Collins sought reinstatement under Manning v. State, arguing he was improperly advised of his appeal rights.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether a defendant seeking reinstatement under the third Manning scenario must show both that he was not properly advised and that he would have appealed if properly informed. The Court of Appeals had held that proving inadequate advice alone was sufficient, rejecting any requirement to show the defendant would have actually appealed.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that harmless error analysis applies to reinstatement claims. The court reasoned that both Manning and Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(f) require defendants to show they were “deprived” of the right to appeal, which implicitly requires proving the error caused harm. A defendant who would not have appealed regardless suffers no deprivation. The court distinguished this from structural error, noting the failure to advise about appeal deadlines does not infect the entire trial process.
Practice Implications
This decision significantly raises the bar for reinstatement motions. Practitioners must now develop evidence showing their clients would have actually appealed if properly advised. This might include testimony about the client’s dissatisfaction with the verdict, prior appeals experience, or specific concerns about trial proceedings. The decision also emphasizes the importance of proper Rule 22(c)(1) advisements at sentencing.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Collins
Citation
2014 UT 61
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20130384
Date Decided
December 30, 2014
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A defendant seeking reinstatement of the right to appeal under Manning v. State must show by a preponderance of evidence both that he was not properly advised of the right to appeal and that he would have appealed had he been properly informed.
Standard of Review
Correctness – the Court reviews the decision of the court of appeals for correctness
Practice Tip
When seeking reinstatement of appeal rights, prepare evidence showing the client would have actually appealed if properly advised, not just that proper advice was not given.
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.