Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Manning v. Stategreen2 sentences2019In Manning we held that a “trial or sentencing court may reinstate the time frame for filing a direct appeal where the defendant can prove . . . that he has been unconstitutionally deprived, through no fault of his own, of his right to appeal.” Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, ¶ 31 , 122 P.3d 628 (emphasis added). 2019In Manning we held that a “trial or sentencing court may reinstate the time frame for filing a direct appeal where the defendant can prove . . . that he has been unconstitutionally deprived, through no fault of his own, of his right to appeal.” Manning v. State, 2005 UT 61, ¶ 31 , 122 P.3d 628 (emphasis added). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Collins, 2014 UT 61, ¶ 30 , 342 P.3d 789 (“Implicit in this [deprivation] requirement is the recognition that where a defendant would not have appealed anyway, there is no deprivation of the right to appeal and any error affecting that right would be harmless.”); see also State v. Blanke, 2023 UT App 113, ¶ 16 , 537 P.3d 654 (stating that a defendant must show “that an appeal would have been taken had the defendant been properly informed of the right”). 2014Accordingly, in this opinion we do not address his claim for restatement on this basis. 6 Cite as: 2014 UT 61 Opinion of the Court rejected the State‟s argument “that Manning error is subject to review for harmless error or prejudice.”12 ¶20 We reverse because the court of appeals erred in not reviewing Mr. Collins‟s claim for reinstatement under a harmless error analysis. | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2013Consequently, under Manning and Johnson v. State, Collins has “a valid claim for reinstatement of that right,” Johnson v. State, 2006 UT 21, ¶ 26 , 134 P.3d 1133 . ¶ 10 The State maintains, however, that Manning error is subject to review for harmless error or prejudice. 2013Consequently, under Manning and Johnson v. State, Collins has “a valid claim for reinstatement of that right,” Johnson v. State, 2006 UT 21, ¶ 26 , 134 P.3d 1133 . ¶ 10 The State maintains, however, that Manning error is subject to review for harmless error or prejudice. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Blankegreen2 sentences2025See State v. Collins, 2014 UT 61, ¶ 30 , 342 P.3d 789 (“Implicit in this [deprivation] requirement is the recognition that where a defendant would not have appealed anyway, there is no deprivation of the right to appeal and any error affecting that right would be harmless.”); see also State v. Blanke, 2023 UT App 113, ¶ 16 , 537 P.3d 654 (stating that a defendant must show “that an appeal would have been taken had the defendant been properly informed of the right”). 2025See State v. Collins, 2014 UT 61, ¶ 30 , 342 P.3d 789 (“Implicit in this [deprivation] requirement is the recognition that where a defendant would not have appealed anyway, there is no deprivation of the right to appeal and any error affecting that right would be harmless.”); see also State v. Blanke, 2023 UT App 113, ¶ 16 , 537 P.3d 654 (stating that a defendant must show “that an appeal would have been taken had the defendant been properly informed of the right”). | 1 | 1 |
Garcia v. Stategreen2 sentences2021While “Manning has been supplanted by rule 4(f)” of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, see State v. Brown, 2021 UT 11, ¶ 13 , 489 P.3d 152 , a motion to reinstate a direct criminal appeal is often colloquially referred to as “a Manning motion,” see, e.g., Garcia v. State, 2018 UT App 129, ¶ 15 , 427 P.3d 1185 ; see also Utah R. 2021While “Manning has been supplanted by rule 4(f)” of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, see State v. Brown, 2021 UT 11, ¶ 13 , 489 P.3d 152 , a motion to reinstate a direct criminal appeal is often colloquially referred to as “a Manning motion,” see, e.g., Garcia v. State, 2018 UT App 129, ¶ 15 , 427 P.3d 1185 ; see also Utah R. | 1 | 1 |
Peter C. Browning v. Jeff P. Prostokgreen1 sentence2017See Browning, 165 S.W.3d at 346 . | 1 | 1 |
Peguero v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2013See generally Peguero, 526 U.S. at 28 , 119 S.Ct. 961 (explaining that where "petitioner had full knowledge of his right to appeal, ... the District Court's ... fail{ure] to inform him of that right did not prejudice him"). 2013See generally Peguero, 526 U.S. at 28 , 119 S.Ct. 961 (explaining that where "petitioner had full knowledge of his right to appeal, ... the District Court's ... fail{ure] to inform him of that right did not prejudice him"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brocksmithgreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Longgreen2 sentences2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for 2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jamisongreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Butterfieldgreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wilsongreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
Duran v. Cookgreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 929 P.2d 1107, 1110 (Utah 1996) (right to appear and defend in person waived); State v. Butterfield, 784 P.2d 153, 157 (Utah 1989) (right to public trial waived); State v. Jamison, 767 P.2d 134, 138 (Utah App. 1989)(right to jury trial waived) (abrogated on other grounds); State v. Wilson, 563 P.2d 792, 793 (Utah 1977)(right to counsel waived); State v. Long, 29 Utah 2d 177 , 506 P.2d 1269, 1270 (1973) (privilege against self-incrimination waived); State v. Brocksmith, 888 P.2d 703, 706 (Utah Ct.App.1994)(right to appeal waived by unconditional plea agreement, for | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2004See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). ¶ 32 In the context of Manning’s claim, “Strickland’s holding that ‘the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances’ ” is applicable. 2004See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 , 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). ¶ 32 In the context of Manning’s claim, “Strickland’s holding that ‘the performance inquiry must be whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances’ ” is applicable. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Hembree
green
2 sentences2025Our supreme court issued its decision in Rippey on December 27, 2024, meaning that there is still time within the one-year post-Rippey period for Hembree to file a second Manning motion based on Rippey. 20230888-CA 22 2025 UT App 166 State v. Hembree Hembree had been advised of the right to appeal his sentence and that he would not have done so in any event—are supported by the record. 2025But even indulging this assumption, after undergoing the deeper 20230888-CA 17 2025 UT App 166 State v. Hembree inquiry we nevertheless decline to review the merits of Hembree’s alternative claim in this appeal, because in our view Hembree remains free, even after disposition of this appeal, to file a new Manning motion in the district court, and given the type of analysis that motion requires, it is best if that motion is adjudicated in the first instance in that court. ¶41 First, we see nothing in applicable rules or caselaw that would prevent a defendant from filing more than one Manning mo | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2021While “Manning has been supplanted by rule 4(f)” of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, see State v. Brown, 2021 UT 11, ¶ 13 , 489 P.3d 152 , a motion to reinstate a direct criminal appeal is often colloquially referred to as “a Manning motion,” see, e.g., Garcia v. State, 2018 UT App 129, ¶ 15 , 427 P.3d 1185 ; see also Utah R. 2021While “Manning has been supplanted by rule 4(f)” of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, see State v. Brown, 2021 UT 11, ¶ 13 , 489 P.3d 152 , a motion to reinstate a direct criminal appeal is often colloquially referred to as “a Manning motion,” see, e.g., Garcia v. State, 2018 UT App 129, ¶ 15 , 427 P.3d 1185 ; see also Utah R. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Nicholls v. State
green
2 sentences2017In support of his motion, Nicholls alleged that his trial counsel performed ineffectively during the plea and sentencing phase of his ease: “there was coercion”; “[he] was wrongfully advised”; and “[trial] counsel promised their assistance on the direct appeal, but after sentencing, went dark.” According to Nicholls, he thus “raised a colorable Manning motion at least facially supported by the record,” and the court should have held a hearing ón the merits. ¶16 In denying Nicholls’ motion, the district court determined that Nicholls had “exhausted his direct appeal rights.” It also determined 2017In support of his motion, Nicholls alleged that his trial counsel performed ineffectively during the plea and sentencing phase of his ease: “there was coercion”; “[he] was wrongfully advised”; and “[trial] counsel promised their assistance on the direct appeal, but after sentencing, went dark.” According to Nicholls, he thus “raised a colorable Manning motion at least facially supported by the record,” and the court should have held a hearing ón the merits. ¶16 In denying Nicholls’ motion, the district court determined that Nicholls had “exhausted his direct appeal rights.” It also determined | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Rees
green
2 sentences2013Scott subsequently filed a Manning motion claiming that he was denied his right to appeal because his appellate counsel was ineffective both in briefing his direct appeal and in failing to file a petition for writ of certiorari by the Utah Supreme Court. ¶3 State v. Rees, 2005 UT 69 , 125 P.3d 874 , is dispositive of this appeal. 2013Scott subsequently filed a Manning motion claiming that he was denied his right to appeal because his appellate counsel was ineffective both in briefing his direct appeal and in failing to file a petition for writ of certiorari by the Utah Supreme Court. ¶3 State v. Rees, 2005 UT 69 , 125 P.3d 874 , is dispositive of this appeal. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Manning v. State
green
2 sentences2005Manning, 2004 UT App 87 ¶ 29 n. 9, 89 P.3d 196 . 2005Manning, 2004 UT App 87 ¶ 29 n. 9, 89 P.3d 196 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Ostler
green
2 sentences2005Despite our decision in State v. Ostler, which was issued after Manning’s plea hearing and which clarified that the thirty-day time frame for withdrawal of guilty pleas begins on the date of “final disposition,” 2001 UT 68, ¶ 11 , 31 P.3d 528 , Manning has never sought to withdraw her guilty pleas and admits she was not prejudiced by this alleged failure to inform her at the time of sentencing that she could withdraw her guilty pleas thirty days from that date. 2005Despite our decision in State v. Ostler, which was issued after Manning’s plea hearing and which clarified that the thirty-day time frame for withdrawal of guilty pleas begins on the date of “final disposition,” 2001 UT 68, ¶ 11 , 31 P.3d 528 , Manning has never sought to withdraw her guilty pleas and admits she was not prejudiced by this alleged failure to inform her at the time of sentencing that she could withdraw her guilty pleas thirty days from that date. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Roe v. Flores-Ortega
green
2 sentences2004Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 478 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ). 2004Roe v. Flores-Ortega, 528 U.S. 470, 478 , 120 S.Ct. 1029, 1035 , 145 L.Ed.2d 985 (2000) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 , 104 S.Ct. at 2065 ). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.