Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts hear untimely post-conviction relief petitions? Collum v. State Explained
Summary
Richard Brian Collum pleaded no contest to sexual abuse of a child in 2010 and was sentenced to one to fifteen years in prison. In June 2013, nearly three years after his conviction became final, Collum filed a petition for post-conviction relief, which the trial court dismissed as untimely under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In Collum v. State, the defendant pleaded no contest to sexual abuse of a child in 2010 and received a sentence of one to fifteen years in prison. The judgment was entered on July 8, 2010, and Collum did not file a direct appeal. Nearly three years later, in June 2013, Collum filed a petition for post-conviction relief under Utah’s Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely, and Collum appealed.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Collum’s post-conviction petition, filed nearly three years after his conviction became final, could proceed despite violating the one-year statute of limitations under Utah Code section 78B-9-107. Collum argued for various exceptions, including alternative accrual dates, tolling provisions, and constitutional challenges to the limitations period.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals systematically rejected each of Collum’s arguments. The court determined that his cause of action accrued on August 9, 2010—the last day for filing a direct appeal—since he did not appeal his conviction. Collum failed to establish any basis for a later accrual date under subsections addressing new rules of law or newly discovered evidence. The court also rejected his tolling arguments, finding no evidence that state action prevented him from filing his petition, particularly given his access to contract attorneys while incarcerated.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the strict enforcement of Utah’s post-conviction relief limitations period. Practitioners must carefully calculate the one-year deadline and document any circumstances that might support tolling or alternative accrual dates. The court’s analysis demonstrates that general frustrations with the criminal process or later-developed legal research do not constitute grounds for extending the filing deadline. For clients considering post-conviction relief, immediate action is essential to preserve these rights.
Case Details
Case Name
Collum v. State
Citation
2015 UT App 229
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140760-CA
Date Decided
September 11, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A post-conviction relief petition filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations under Utah Code section 78B-9-107 must be dismissed as untimely unless the petitioner demonstrates both reasonable justification for the delay and a meritorious defense.
Standard of Review
Not specified in the opinion
Practice Tip
When advising clients on post-conviction relief, calculate the limitations period carefully from the date the conviction became final and document any potential tolling circumstances contemporaneously.
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.