Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants file multiple motions to reinstate time for criminal appeals? State v. Hembree Explained
Summary
Hembree pleaded guilty to 6 of 56 charges, including serious sex offenses, receiving concurrent prison terms of six years to life. He failed to appeal within thirty days and later sought reinstatement of time to appeal, claiming inadequate advisement of appellate rights. The district court denied the motion, finding Hembree had been properly advised and would not have appealed anyway.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed important questions about reinstating time to file criminal appeals in State v. Hembree, clarifying when defendants can seek multiple opportunities to appeal and what constitutes proper advisement of appellate rights.
Background and Facts
Hembree faced 56 criminal charges across two cases, including 50 felony sex offenses involving minors. He entered a favorable plea agreement, pleading guilty to only 6 counts while the State dismissed the remaining 50 charges. The district court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of six years to life. Hembree failed to file a notice of appeal within thirty days and later moved to reinstate his time to appeal, claiming he was never properly advised of his appellate rights. The district court denied the motion.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two main issues: (1) whether the district court properly denied Hembree’s motion to reinstate time to appeal his sentence under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(f), and (2) whether the Utah Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Rippey constituted exceptional circumstances allowing review of an unpreserved claim to appeal his convictions.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court affirmed the denial of Hembree’s motion. Under the Manning test codified in Rule 4(f), defendants must show they were deprived of appellate rights through no fault of their own and would have appealed if properly advised. The court found that plea counsel’s certification under Rule 36(b)(2) provided sufficient evidence that Hembree was advised of his appellate rights. Additionally, given Hembree’s favorable plea agreement and minimal sentence, the court concluded he would not have appealed anyway. Regarding the Rippey issue, the court declined to apply the exceptional circumstances doctrine, noting that Hembree could file a second motion in district court.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that defendants are not categorically barred from filing multiple motions to reinstate time for criminal appeals, provided new grounds arise that could not have been raised previously. The court emphasized that Rule 36(b)(2) withdrawal certifications carry significant evidentiary weight when determining whether defendants were properly advised of appellate rights. Practitioners should ensure detailed documentation of when and how appellate rights discussions occur to avoid later disputes about adequate advisement.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Hembree
Citation
2025 UT App 166
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20230888-CA
Date Decided
November 13, 2025
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court properly denies reinstatement of time to appeal when defendant was advised of appellate rights and would not have appealed given the favorable plea agreement and minimal sentence imposed.
Standard of Review
Correctness for the legal conclusion that defendant was not unconstitutionally deprived of right to appeal, with deference to underlying factual findings unless clearly erroneous; correctness for exceptional circumstances determination
Practice Tip
When filing rule 36(b)(2) withdrawal certifications, specify exactly when appellate rights were discussed with the client to avoid later disputes about timing.
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.