Porter v. Cook, 747 P.2d 1031 (Utah 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Porter v. Cook, 747 P.2d 1031 (Utah 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Rawlings (utahctapp, 1992-03-27)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rawlings (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 1992 · confidence medium
Porter v. Cook, 747 P.2d 1031, 1032 (Utah 1987); Codiana v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101, 1104 (Utah 1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lancaster v. Cook
Utah · 1988 · confidence medium
Porter v. Cook, 747 P.2d 1031, 1032 (Utah 1987); Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101, 1104 (Utah 1983); Martinez v. Smith, 602 P.2d 700, 702 (Utah 1979).
discussed Cited "see" Matthew v. Cook
Utah · 1988 · signal: accord · confidence high
The writ “is not a substitute for and cannot be used to perform the function of regular appellate review.” Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101 , 1104 (Utah 1983); accord Porter v. Cook, Warden, 747 P.2d 1031 (Utah 1987); Wells v. Shulsen, Warden, 747 P.2d 1043 (Utah 1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Stephen W. PORTER, and
v.
Gerald COOK, Warden, and
No. 860647.
Utah Supreme Court.
Dec 1, 1987.
747 P.2d 1031
Phil Jones, Orem, for plaintiff and appellant., David L. Wilkinson and Kimberly Hor-nak, Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.
Zimmerman, Hall, Stewart, Howe, Durham.
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published

Memorandum of Decision

ZIMMERMAN, Justice:

A jury found defendant Steven Wayne Porter guilty of aggravated burglary under section 76-6-203 of the Code, burglary under section 76-6-202, and theft under section 76-6-404. He appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions in State v. Porter, 705 P.2d 1174, 1179 (Utah 1985). Porter next filed a writ of habeas corpus. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied Porter’s request for relief. This is an appeal from that ruling.

Before this Court, Porter essentially repeats the arguments made below. He contends on a number . of grounds that throughout his defense, he has been denied effective assistance of counsel. The trial court rejected these contentions after the evidentiary hearing, ruling that defense counsel’s representation met constitutional standards. This conclusion was supported by a detailed memorandum of decision and findings and conclusions. We are not persuaded that the trial court erred.

Porter also argues that certain rulings made in the course of his original trial were erroneous. These arguments should have been addressed in his direct appeal. We will not consider them now. See, e.g., Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101, 1104 (Utah 1983); State v. Boggess, 601 P.2d 927, 929 (Utah 1979).

Affirmed.

HALL, C.J., STEWART, Associate C.J., and HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.