Utah Court of Appeals
When must post-conviction relief petitions be filed in Utah? State v. Glasscock Explained
Summary
David Glasscock appealed the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief related to his 2003 guilty plea for attempted aggravated abuse of a child. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred under Utah Code section 78B-9-107(1) because Glasscock filed it in February 2013, almost three years after he allegedly discovered in April 2010 that he was required to register as a sex offender.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Glasscock clarified the strict timing requirements for post-conviction relief petitions, demonstrating how the one-year statute of limitations operates when claims are based on newly discovered facts.
Background and Facts
David Glasscock pled guilty to attempted aggravated abuse of a child in 2003 and was sentenced on November 6, 2003. He never filed a notice of appeal. Nearly ten years later, in February 2013, Glasscock filed a petition for post-conviction relief, claiming he was unaware of his requirement to register as a sex offender. He asserted that he only discovered this requirement on April 19, 2010, which formed the basis of his post-conviction claims.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Glasscock’s petition was time-barred under Utah Code section 78B-9-107(1), which requires post-conviction relief petitions to be filed within one year of when the cause of action accrues. Under subsection (2)(e), the cause of action accrues on “the date on which petitioner knew or should have known, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, of evidentiary facts on which the petition is based.”
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reviewed the dismissal for correctness without deference to the trial court’s legal conclusions. Even accepting Glasscock’s claim that he discovered the registration requirement on April 19, 2010, his February 2013 filing was nearly three years late. The court rejected Glasscock’s argument that certain conditions should have tolled the limitation period, noting these conditions occurred well after the one-year deadline had already passed. The court also declined to address Glasscock’s “interests of justice” exception argument because it was not properly preserved in the district court.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the strict nature of Utah’s post-conviction relief statute of limitations. Practitioners must carefully calculate the one-year period from the date of actual or constructive knowledge of the underlying facts. Conditions that arise after the limitation period has expired cannot provide grounds for tolling. Additionally, all potential arguments must be preserved in the trial court to avoid waiver on appeal.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Glasscock
Citation
2017 UT App 39
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150242-CA
Date Decided
March 2, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A petition for post-conviction relief must be filed within one year of when the petitioner knew or should have known of the evidentiary facts upon which the petition is based, and conditions preventing timely filing that occurred well after the one-year limitation period cannot toll the statute of limitations.
Standard of Review
Correctness without deference for conclusions of law
Practice Tip
When filing post-conviction relief petitions based on newly discovered facts, carefully calculate the one-year limitation period from the date of actual or constructive knowledge and preserve all arguments in the trial court to avoid waiver.
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.