Utah Court of Appeals
Can delays in appointing appellate counsel constitute structural error? State v. Bunker Explained
Summary
After Bunker’s probation was revoked in May 2016, he filed a pro se notice of appeal. Due to delays in appointing appellate counsel, his case remained stayed for nineteen months before proceeding to briefing and argument. Bunker argued the delay violated his constitutional rights and constituted structural error requiring presumption of prejudice.
Analysis
In State v. Bunker, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether lengthy delays in appointing appellate counsel can constitute structural error requiring automatic reversal without a showing of prejudice.
Background and Facts
After Bunker pled guilty to assault by a prisoner in 2013, the district court sentenced him to prison but suspended the term in favor of probation. Following multiple probation violations, the court terminated his probation as unsuccessful in May 2016 and reinstated his prison sentence. Bunker filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. However, due to administrative delays, it took nineteen months for the district court to appoint appellate counsel after his trial counsel withdrew. During this period, the appeal remained stayed.
Key Legal Issues
Bunker raised two primary arguments: (1) he was denied his right to appellate counsel during critical stages of the proceedings, and (2) the delay in the appellate process violated his right to a timely appeal. He argued these circumstances constituted structural error requiring presumption of prejudice rather than requiring him to demonstrate actual harm.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court rejected both arguments. First, regarding denial of counsel, the court applied the State v. Maestas framework, holding that the delay period was not a critical stage because the appeal was stayed and no decisions bearing on the merits occurred while Bunker was unrepresented. Second, the court relied on State v. Arguelles, which expressly declined to recognize a right to speedy appeal under Utah law. The court distinguished State v. McClellan, where prejudice was presumed due to lost records, noting Bunker had not shown similar prejudice from the delay.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that structural error analysis requires more than mere delay in appellate proceedings. Practitioners must demonstrate that counsel was denied during substantive phases of the appeal, not administrative periods. The ruling reinforces that Utah does not recognize a constitutional right to speedy appeal, requiring defendants to show actual prejudice from appellate delays rather than relying on presumptions.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Bunker
Citation
2019 UT App 118
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20160440-CA
Date Decided
July 11, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Delays in the appellate process do not constitute structural error requiring presumption of prejudice where the defendant was not denied counsel during critical stages and Utah does not recognize a right to speedy appeal.
Standard of Review
No standard of review applies as the claim was brought for the first time on appeal; decided as a matter of law
Practice Tip
When claiming structural error due to appellate delays, practitioners must demonstrate that counsel was denied during critical stages of the proceedings, not merely administrative periods where the appeal is stayed.
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.