Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 9 — Postconviction Remedies Act; part 78B-9-1 — General Provisions
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-9-102 (2026)

Replacement of prior remedies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter establishes the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies, including a direct appeal except as provided in Subsection (2). This chapter replaces all prior remedies for review, including extraordinary or common law writs. Proceedings under this chapter are civil and are governed by the rules of civil procedure. Procedural provisions for filing and commencement of a petition are found in Rule 65C, Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
A court may not enter an order to withdraw, modify, vacate or otherwise set aside a plea unless it is in conformity with this chapter or Section 77-13-6.
This chapter does not apply to:
habeas corpus petitions that do not challenge a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense;
motions to correct a sentence pursuant to Rule 22(e), Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure; or
actions taken by the Board of Pardons and Parole.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Noor v. State, 2019 UT 3 (Utah 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Noor v. State, 2019 UT 3 (Utah 2019). · cites it 16× “Section 78B-9-102 provides in relevant part: This chapter establishes the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies, including a direct appeal except as provided in Subsection (2).”
Meza v. State, 2015 UT 70 (Utah 2015). · cites it 10× “Meza relies on sections 78B-9-102(1) and 78B-9-104(1), which reference conviction and sentence in the disjunctive.”
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). · cites it 4× “§ 78 -35a-102 (1996) with Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-102 (2008). 242 . Id.”
State v. Hon. Boyden, 2019 UT 11 (Utah 2019). · cites it 3× “See UTAH CODE § 78B-9-102(1)(a). In addition, the court's "authority to rescind acceptance of a guilty plea [was] specifically limited to the window before sentencing and judgment" and "that window [had] closed.”
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012). · cites it 3× “" Utah Codepz § 78B-9-102(1). 1 Under the PCRA, "[a] petitioner is entitled to relief only if the petition is filed within one year after the cause of action has acerued.”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). · cites it 3× “Because the PCRA provides that it is “the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies,” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-102(1)(a), the post-conviction court and both parties have assumed that the PCRA…”
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 4× “3d 686 (quotation simplified); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-102(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2018) (explaining that post- conviction proceedings are civil).”
Patterson v. State, 2021 UT 52 (Utah 2021). · cites it 2× “According to Patterson, the district court and this court possess constitutional authority to issue post-conviction extraordinary writs that is independent of a statutory scheme like the PCRA.”
Nicholls v. State, 2009 UT 12 (Utah 2009). · cites it 2× “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-102(1) (2008). 5 .”
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). · cites it 2× “Hurst established common law “exceptions” to the limitations of the PCRA, Those exceptions, in turn, were repudiated by the legislature in 2008, in a provision clarifying that the PCRA is the “sole remedy” for post-conviction relief.”
State v. Robinson, 2023 UT 25 (Utah 2023). · cites it 3× “See UTAH CODE § 78B-9-102(1)(a), (2)(b). No language in the rule supports Robinson’s invitation to read it as vesting the courts with the authority to correct sentences on other, unidentified grounds.”
Oseguera v. State, 2014 UT 31 (Utah 2014). · cites it 2× “" 30 Utah Code section 78B-9-102(1) provides that the PCRA "establishes the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies," and "replaces all prior remedies for review, including…”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 78B-9-102(1) — 17 cases
Meza v. State, 2015 UT 70 (Utah 2015). “Meza relies on sections 78B-9-102(1) and 78B-9-104(1), which reference conviction and sentence in the disjunctive.”
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012). “" Utah Codepz § 78B-9-102(1). 1 Under the PCRA, "[a] petitioner is entitled to relief only if the petition is filed within one year after the cause of action has acerued.”
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “§ 78 -35a-102 (1996) with Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-102 (2008). 242 . Id.”
Noor v. State, 2019 UT 3 (Utah 2019). “Section 78B-9-102 provides in relevant part: This chapter establishes the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies, including a direct appeal except as provided in Subsection (2).”
Nicholls v. State, 2009 UT 12 (Utah 2009). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-102(1) (2008). 5 .”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-102(1)(a) — 18 cases
Noor v. State, 2019 UT 3 (Utah 2019). “Section 78B-9-102 provides in relevant part: This chapter establishes the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies, including a direct appeal except as provided in Subsection (2).”
State v. Hon. Boyden, 2019 UT 11 (Utah 2019). “See UTAH CODE § 78B-9-102(1)(a). In addition, the court's "authority to rescind acceptance of a guilty plea [was] specifically limited to the window before sentencing and judgment" and "that window [had] closed.”
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “3d 686 (quotation simplified); see also Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-102(1)(a) (LexisNexis 2018) (explaining that post- conviction proceedings are civil).”
Patterson v. State, 2021 UT 52 (Utah 2021). “According to Patterson, the district court and this court possess constitutional authority to issue post-conviction extraordinary writs that is independent of a statutory scheme like the PCRA.”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “Because the PCRA provides that it is “the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies,” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-102(1)(a), the post-conviction court and both parties have assumed that the PCRA…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-102(2) — 3 cases
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “Because the PCRA provides that it is “the sole remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies,” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-102(1)(a), the post-conviction court and both parties have assumed that the PCRA…”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020).
Sandoval v. State, 2019 UT 13 (Utah 2019).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-102(l) — 1 case
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “Hurst established common law “exceptions” to the limitations of the PCRA, Those exceptions, in turn, were repudiated by the legislature in 2008, in a provision clarifying that the PCRA is the “sole remedy” for post-conviction relief.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.