mandates rule in Utah

2025Under the PCRA’s own instruction, we apply the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure so long as those rules are not inconsistent with any of the PCRA’s mandates or rule 65C. 78 Because rule 65C does not “explicitly address” whether a postconviction petitioner may file a motion for summary judgment, we look to the other rules of civil procedure. 79 Subsection (b) of rule 7 explains the procedures for filing a motion and instructs parties filing a motion for summary judgment that they “must follow the procedures of this rule as __________________________________________________________ 73 Id.

2025Under the PCRA’s own instruction, we apply the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure so long as those rules are not inconsistent with any of the PCRA’s mandates or rule 65C.78 Because rule 65C does not “explicitly address” whether a postconviction petitioner may file a motion for summary judgment, we look to the other rules of civil procedure.79 Subsection (b) of rule 7 explains the procedures for filing a motion and instructs parties filing a motion for summary judgment that they “must follow the procedures of this rule as __________________________________________________________ 73 Id.

2014For a trial court to comply with the mandates of rule 11(e), it need not “follow a particular script or any other specific method of communicating the rights enumerated by rule 11,” rather, compliance “can be accomplished by multiple means so long as no requirement of the rale is omitted and so long as the record reflects that the requirement has been fulfilled.” See State v. Corwell, 2005 UT 28, ¶ 12 , 114 P.3d 569 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014For a trial court to comply with the mandates of rule 11(e), it need not “follow a particular script or any other specific method of communicating the rights enumerated by rule 11,” rather, compliance “can be accomplished by multiple means so long as no requirement of the rale is omitted and so long as the record reflects that the requirement has been fulfilled.” See State v. Corwell, 2005 UT 28, ¶ 12 , 114 P.3d 569 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2010ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW {9 Defendant first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. "'An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."" State v. Perry, 2009 UT App 51, ¶ 9 , 204 P.3d 880 (quoting State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 ). € 10 Next, Defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts to be admitted, contrary to the mandates of rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

2010ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW {9 Defendant first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. "'An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."" State v. Perry, 2009 UT App 51, ¶ 9 , 204 P.3d 880 (quoting State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 ). € 10 Next, Defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts to be admitted, contrary to the mandates of rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

2010ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW {9 Defendant first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. "'An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."" State v. Perry, 2009 UT App 51, ¶ 9 , 204 P.3d 880 (quoting State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 ). € 10 Next, Defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts to be admitted, contrary to the mandates of rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

2010ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW {9 Defendant first argues that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects. "'An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law."" State v. Perry, 2009 UT App 51, ¶ 9 , 204 P.3d 880 (quoting State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 ). € 10 Next, Defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly allowed evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts to be admitted, contrary to the mandates of rule 404(b) of the Utah Rules of Evidence.