Utah Court of Appeals
Can newly discovered evidence extend Utah's post-conviction relief deadlines? Marchet v. State Explained
Summary
Marchet filed a second post-conviction petition over forty-one months after his rape conviction became final, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations, and other issues. The district court dismissed the petition as time-barred under the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations.
Analysis
In Marchet v. State, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed critical timing issues under Utah’s Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), demonstrating how strictly courts enforce statutory deadlines even when petitioners claim newly discovered evidence.
Background and Facts
Azlen Marchet filed a second post-conviction petition over forty-one months after his rape conviction became final. He claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, constitutional violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and erroneous admission of prior acts evidence. Marchet argued some claims were based on evidence he discovered when obtaining his trial and appellate attorneys’ case files in June 2013. He also claimed entitlement to relief under State v. Verde, which established new standards for admitting prior acts evidence after his conviction became final.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether exceptions to the PCRA’s one-year statute of limitations applied to Marchet’s claims. The PCRA generally requires petitions within one year of when the cause of action accrued, but provides exceptions for newly discovered evidence and subsequently decided case law under specific circumstances.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, finding all claims time-barred. Even applying the newly discovered evidence exception, Marchet’s June 2013 discovery gave him only until June 2014 to file, but he filed in August 2014. Similarly, his claim under Verde failed because the petition wasn’t filed within one year of that decision. Claims not based on newly discovered evidence were also procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores Utah courts’ strict enforcement of PCRA deadlines. Practitioners must carefully calculate limitation periods, particularly when claiming newly discovered evidence exceptions. The court’s analysis also demonstrates that procedural bars apply separately from time bars, requiring careful consideration of what claims could have been raised earlier in the proceedings.
Case Details
Case Name
Marchet v. State
Citation
2016 UT App 28
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20151024-CA
Date Decided
February 11, 2016
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Post-conviction claims are time-barred when filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations, even under exceptions for newly discovered evidence or subsequent case law developments.
Standard of Review
Correctness without deference for conclusions of law
Practice Tip
When calculating PCRA deadlines for newly discovered evidence claims, ensure the petition is filed within one year of the actual discovery date, as courts will strictly enforce these time limits.
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.