Utah Court of Appeals
What must defendants prove to reinstate their right to appeal? State v. McNair Explained
Summary
McNair pleaded guilty to rape in 2006 and was sentenced to prison in 2007. Nearly a decade later, he filed a motion to reinstate his time to file a direct appeal, claiming he was not properly advised of his appellate rights. The district court denied the motion, finding McNair failed to establish he would have appealed but for any advisory failure.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
In 2006, Eugene McNair pleaded guilty to rape pursuant to a plea agreement and was sentenced to five years to life in prison in January 2007. The district court failed to advise McNair of his right to appeal at sentencing, as required by Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(c)(1). Nearly a decade later, in 2016, McNair filed a motion requesting reinstatement of his time to file a direct appeal under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(f).
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether McNair established that he was unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal under the third Manning scenario, which applies when the court or defendant’s attorney failed to properly advise the defendant of the right to appeal. Under State v. Collins, defendants must prove two elements: (1) neither the court nor counsel properly advised them of their right to appeal, and (2) but for this failure they would have filed an appeal.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial, focusing on McNair’s failure to establish prejudice. While acknowledging that neither the sentencing court nor counsel advised McNair of his appellate rights at sentencing, the court found McNair failed to present evidence that he would have appealed but for this failure. McNair’s vague assertions that he “didn’t know what to do” and couldn’t contact his attorney were insufficient to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores the importance of developing concrete evidence when seeking Manning relief. Practitioners must go beyond general claims of confusion or communication difficulties with trial counsel. The court emphasized that defendants bear the burden to prove they would have actually appealed, requiring specific evidence of intent and circumstances. Additionally, the decision reinforces that trial courts must comply with Rule 22(c)(1)’s requirement to advise defendants of their appellate rights at sentencing.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. McNair
Citation
2019 UT App 26
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170504-CA
Date Decided
February 22, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant seeking reinstatement of appellate rights under Manning must establish both that he was not properly advised of his right to appeal and that but for this failure he would have filed an appeal.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the district court’s legal conclusion that McNair was not unconstitutionally deprived of his right to appeal; clear error for underlying factual findings
Practice Tip
When seeking reinstatement of appellate rights under Manning, prepare specific evidence showing the client would have appealed but for the advisory failure, not just vague assertions about confusion or inability to contact counsel.
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.