Utah Supreme Court
Can defendants seek stay relief during certiorari proceedings? State v. Robertson Explained
Summary
Robertson was convicted of sexual exploitation of a minor and sought a stay and certificate of probable cause. After his conviction was affirmed on appeal and certiorari was granted, he filed another motion for stay and certificate directly with the Utah Supreme Court.
Analysis
Background and facts: D. Chris Robertson was convicted of multiple counts of sexual exploitation of a minor and sentenced to concurrent prison terms. He filed motions for a stay of sentence and certificate of probable cause with the district court, which were denied. Robertson appealed his conviction but did not challenge the denial of his stay request during that appeal. After the court of appeals affirmed his conviction and the Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari, Robertson filed new motions for stay and certificate directly with the Supreme Court.
Key legal issues: The central question was whether a defendant can seek appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a stay and certificate of probable cause during certiorari proceedings, rather than during the direct appeal process.
Court’s analysis and holding: The Utah Supreme Court examined Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 27, which governs stays pending appeal. Rule 27(b)(6) allows parties to petition the appellate court for relief from a trial court’s denial of a stay, but this provision requires that the request be filed “in conjunction with a direct appeal.” The Court emphasized that Robertson failed to avail himself of Rule 27(b)(6) during his direct appeal, and that appeal had been completed. The Court distinguished between a direct appeal and certiorari proceedings, holding that Rule 27(b)(6) review is not available during certiorari review.
Practice implications: This decision establishes clear timing requirements for challenging stay denials. Practitioners must file motions under Rule 27(b)(6) during the direct appeal process, not during subsequent certiorari proceedings. The Court’s ruling prevents defendants from obtaining multiple bites at the apple for stay relief and reinforces the procedural distinctions between different types of appellate review. Defense counsel should be particularly careful to preserve all stay-related issues during the initial appeal to avoid waiving these important protections for their clients.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Robertson
Citation
2015 UT 44
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20140268
Date Decided
June 9, 2015
Outcome
Denied
Holding
A defendant cannot seek appellate review of a trial court’s denial of a stay and certificate of probable cause during certiorari proceedings when such review was not sought during the underlying appeal.
Standard of Review
Clear and convincing evidence for stay determinations under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 27
Practice Tip
File motions for appellate review of denied stays and certificates of probable cause during the direct appeal under Rule 27(b)(6), as this opportunity is not available during subsequent certiorari proceedings.
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.