Utah Code
Utah Code § 78B-9-104 (2026)
Grounds for relief -- Retroactivity of rule
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
UT-LEGle.utah.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Unless precluded by Section 78B-9-106 or 78B-9-107, an individual who has been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offense may file an action in the district court of original jurisdiction for postconviction relief to vacate or modify the conviction or sentence upon the following grounds:
the conviction was obtained or the sentence was imposed in violation of the United States Constitution or Utah Constitution;
the conviction was obtained or the sentence was imposed under a statute that is in violation of the United States Constitution or Utah Constitution, or the conduct for which the petitioner was prosecuted is constitutionally protected;
the sentence was imposed or probation was revoked in violation of the controlling statutory provisions;
the petitioner had ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the United States Constitution or Utah Constitution;
newly discovered material evidence exists that requires the court to vacate the conviction or sentence, because:
neither the petitioner nor petitioner's counsel knew of the evidence at the time of trial or sentencing or in time to include the evidence in any previously filed post-trial motion or postconviction proceeding, and the evidence could not have been discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence;
the material evidence is not merely cumulative of evidence that was known;
the material evidence is not merely impeachment evidence; and
viewed with all the other evidence, the newly discovered material evidence demonstrates that no reasonable trier of fact could have found the petitioner guilty of the offense or subject to the sentence received;
the petitioner can prove that:
biological evidence, as that term is defined in Section 77-11c-101, relevant to the petitioner's conviction was not preserved in accordance with Title 77, Chapter 11c, Part 4, Preservation of Biological Evidence for Violent Felony Offenses;
the biological evidence described in Subsection (1)(f)(i) was not tested previously; or
if the biological evidence described in Subsection (1)(f)(i) was tested previously, there is a material change in circumstance, including a scientific or technological advance, that would make it plausible that a test of the biological evidence described in Subsection (1)(f)(i) would produce a favorable test result for the petitioner; and
a favorable result described in Subsection (1)(f)(ii), which is presumed for purposes of the petitioner's action under this section, when viewed with all the other evidence, demonstrates a reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome at trial for the petitioner;
the petitioner can prove entitlement to relief under a rule announced by the United States Supreme Court, the Utah Supreme Court, or the Utah Court of Appeals after conviction and sentence became final on direct appeal, and that:
the rule was dictated by precedent existing at the time the petitioner's conviction or sentence became final; or
the rule decriminalizes the conduct that comprises the elements of the crime for which the petitioner was convicted; or
the petitioner committed any of the following offenses while subject to force, fraud, or coercion, as defined in Section 76-5-308:
Section 76-18-207, possession of a controlled substance, or an offense described in a statute previously in effect in this state that is the same or substantially similar to a violation of Section 76-18-207;
Section 76-5d-206, aiding prostitution;
Section 76-6-206, criminal trespass;
Section 76-6-413, theft;
Section 76-6-502, possession of forged writing or device for writing;
any offense in Title 76, Chapter 6, Part 6, Retail Theft;
Subsection 76-6-1105(2)(a)(i)(A), unlawful possession of another's identification document;
Section 76-5-419, lewdness;
Section 76-5d-202, engaging in prostitution;
Section 76-5d-209, sexual solicitation by an actor offering to engage in sexual activity for compensation; or
Section 76-5d-210, sexual solicitation of a child.
The court may not grant relief from a conviction or sentence unless in light of the facts proved in the postconviction proceeding, viewed with the evidence and facts introduced at trial or during sentencing:
the petitioner establishes that there would be a reasonable likelihood of a more favorable outcome; or
if the petitioner challenges the conviction or the sentence on grounds that the prosecutor knowingly failed to correct false testimony at trial or at sentencing, the petitioner establishes that the false testimony, in any reasonable likelihood, could have affected the judgment of the fact finder.
The court may not grant relief from a conviction based on a claim that the petitioner is innocent of the crime for which convicted except as provided in Part 3, Postconviction Testing of DNA, or Part 4, Postconviction Determination of Factual Innocence.
Claims under Part 3, Postconviction Testing of DNA, or Part 4, Postconviction Determination of Factual Innocence, of this chapter may not be filed as part of a petition under this part, but shall be filed separately and in conformity with the provisions of Part 3, Postconviction Testing of DNA, or Part 4, Postconviction Determination of Factual Innocence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012).
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012). “Specifically, section 78B-9-104(1) states: [A] person who has been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offense may file an action in the district court of original jurisdiction for post-conviction relief to vacate or modify the conviction or sentence [if]: [[Image here]] (£)…”
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015). “Section 78B-9-104(1)((G) Incorporates Federal Retroactivity Jurisprudence 110 The PCRA allows a petition like Mr.”
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “¶24 Archuleta submits that Utah Code section 78B-9-104(1)(a) permits him to file his Atkins claim.”
Arriaga v. State, 2020 UT 37 (Utah 2020). “’”(citation omitted)) with UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104 (“The court may not grant relief .”
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's case pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-9-104 (2008). We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to the interoperation of Utah Code section 78A-4-103(2)(f) and subsections 78A-3-102(3)(i) and -102(3)(j) (2008).”
Meza v. State, 2015 UT 70 (Utah 2015). “” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104(1) (emphasis added). The meaning of “and” in this context is clear—both a conviction and a sentence are required before a petitioner may obtain PCRA relief.”
Gressman v. State, 2013 UT 63 (Utah 2013). “" - Ura Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(iv); see also id. § 78-35a-104(1)(e)(iv) (1996) (The same standard applied when the PCRA was first enacted in 1996.”
Mulder v. State, 2016 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “Under the current PCRA standard, however, a petitioner can obtain relief only if "the .”
Patterson v. State, 2021 UT 52 (Utah 2021). “See UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104; see also Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62, ¶ 30 , 472 P.”
State v. Hon. Boyden, 2019 UT 11 (Utah 2019). “" UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104(1). The State asserted that because it had been neither convicted nor sentenced, the PCRA offered the State no avenue to relief.”
Menzies v. State, 2014 UT 40 (Utah 2014). “Menzies raises two claims for the first time on appeal, both of which we decline to reach as unpreserved.”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1) — 18 cases
Meza v. State, 2015 UT 70 (Utah 2015). “” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104(1) (emphasis added). The meaning of “and” in this context is clear—both a conviction and a sentence are required before a petitioner may obtain PCRA relief.”
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012). “Specifically, section 78B-9-104(1) states: [A] person who has been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offense may file an action in the district court of original jurisdiction for post-conviction relief to vacate or modify the conviction or sentence [if]: [[Image here]] (£)…”
State v. Hon. Boyden, 2019 UT 11 (Utah 2019). “" UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104(1). The State asserted that because it had been neither convicted nor sentenced, the PCRA offered the State no avenue to relief.”
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015). “Section 78B-9-104(1)((G) Incorporates Federal Retroactivity Jurisprudence 110 The PCRA allows a petition like Mr.”
Johnson v. State, 267 P.3d 880 (Utah 2011).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(F) — 1 case
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015). “Section 78B-9-104(1)((G) Incorporates Federal Retroactivity Jurisprudence 110 The PCRA allows a petition like Mr.”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(F)(G) — 1 case
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015). “Section 78B-9-104(1)((G) Incorporates Federal Retroactivity Jurisprudence 110 The PCRA allows a petition like Mr.”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(a) — 15 cases
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “¶24 Archuleta submits that Utah Code section 78B-9-104(1)(a) permits him to file his Atkins claim.”
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's case pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-9-104 (2008). We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to the interoperation of Utah Code section 78A-4-103(2)(f) and subsections 78A-3-102(3)(i) and -102(3)(j) (2008).”
Arriaga v. State, 2020 UT 37 (Utah 2020). “’”(citation omitted)) with UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104 (“The court may not grant relief .”
Nicholls v. State, 2009 UT 12 (Utah 2009).
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(c) — 1 case
Ortiz v. Utah Bd. of Pardons (D. Utah 2024).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(d) — 14 cases
Menzies v. State, 2014 UT 40 (Utah 2014). “Menzies raises two claims for the first time on appeal, both of which we decline to reach as unpreserved.”
Arriaga v. State, 2020 UT 37 (Utah 2020). “’”(citation omitted)) with UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104 (“The court may not grant relief .”
Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012).
Lucero v. State, 2016 UT App 50 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
McCamey v. State, 2017 UT App 97 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(e) — 9 cases
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
Monson v. Salt Lake City, 2015 UT App 136 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
Lynch v. State, 2017 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Carter v. State, 2015 UT 38 (Utah 2015).
Logue v. State, 2025 UT App 23 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(i) — 2 cases
Logue v. State, 2025 UT App 23 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(ii) — 2 cases
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
Logue v. State, 2025 UT App 23 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(iii) — 4 cases
Magallanes v. South Salt Lake City, 2015 UT App 154 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
Logue v. State, 2025 UT App 23 (Utah Ct. App. 2025).
Haslam v. Salt Lake City, 2015 UT App 228 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(iv) — 8 cases
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
Gressman v. State, 2013 UT 63 (Utah 2013). “" - Ura Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(iv); see also id. § 78-35a-104(1)(e)(iv) (1996) (The same standard applied when the PCRA was first enacted in 1996.”
Mulder v. State, 2016 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “Under the current PCRA standard, however, a petitioner can obtain relief only if "the .”
Lynch v. State, 2017 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Williams, 2012 UT App 119 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(f) — 11 cases
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012). “Specifically, section 78B-9-104(1) states: [A] person who has been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offense may file an action in the district court of original jurisdiction for post-conviction relief to vacate or modify the conviction or sentence [if]: [[Image here]] (£)…”
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015). “Section 78B-9-104(1)((G) Incorporates Federal Retroactivity Jurisprudence 110 The PCRA allows a petition like Mr.”
Patterson v. State, 2021 UT 52 (Utah 2021). “See UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104; see also Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62, ¶ 30 , 472 P.”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “¶24 Archuleta submits that Utah Code section 78B-9-104(1)(a) permits him to file his Atkins claim.”
Marchet v. State, 327 P.3d 44 (Utah Ct. App. 2014).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(i) — 5 cases
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012). “Specifically, section 78B-9-104(1) states: [A] person who has been convicted and sentenced for a criminal offense may file an action in the district court of original jurisdiction for post-conviction relief to vacate or modify the conviction or sentence [if]: [[Image here]] (£)…”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “¶24 Archuleta submits that Utah Code section 78B-9-104(1)(a) permits him to file his Atkins claim.”
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015). “Section 78B-9-104(1)((G) Incorporates Federal Retroactivity Jurisprudence 110 The PCRA allows a petition like Mr.”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020).
Winward v. State, 2015 UT 61 (Utah 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(ii) — 2 cases
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “¶24 Archuleta submits that Utah Code section 78B-9-104(1)(a) permits him to file his Atkins claim.”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(2) — 7 cases
Arriaga v. State, 2020 UT 37 (Utah 2020). “’”(citation omitted)) with UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104 (“The court may not grant relief .”
Landry v. State, 2016 UT App 164 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's case pursuant to Utah Code section 78B-9-104 (2008). We have jurisdiction to hear this appeal pursuant to the interoperation of Utah Code section 78A-4-103(2)(f) and subsections 78A-3-102(3)(i) and -102(3)(j) (2008).”
Carter v. State, 2019 UT 12 (Utah 2019).
Carter v. State, 2025 UT 13 (Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(2)(a) — 2 cases
Carter v. State, 2025 UT 13 (Utah 2025).
Miranda v. State (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(2)(b) — 1 case
Carter v. State, 2025 UT 13 (Utah 2025).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(3) — 6 cases
Gressman v. State, 2013 UT 63 (Utah 2013). “" - Ura Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(e)(iv); see also id. § 78-35a-104(1)(e)(iv) (1996) (The same standard applied when the PCRA was first enacted in 1996.”
Gressman v. State, 2013 UT 63 (Utah 2013).
Socolov v. State, 2022 UT App 40 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
Wamsley v. State, 2012 UT App 57 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
Reid v. Powell (10th Cir. 2024).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(e)(i) — 2 cases
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(e)(ii) — 1 case
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(a) — 1 case
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT App 190 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(d) — 1 case
Gray v. State, 2017 UT App 93 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(e) — 1 case
Mulder v. State, 2016 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “Under the current PCRA standard, however, a petitioner can obtain relief only if "the .”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(e)(i) — 1 case
Wickham v. Friel, 299 F. App'x 813 (10th Cir. 2008).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(e)(iii) — 1 case
Monson v. Salt Lake City, 2015 UT App 136 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(e)(iv) — 3 cases
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015). “" Urax Cope § 78B-9-104(1)(a). In this claim, Pinder argues that the State violated his rights to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when it (1) knowingly put on Welch's perjured testimony and (2) knowingly used a falsified version of the 911 tapes to guide witnesses'…”
Mulder v. State, 2016 UT App 207 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “Under the current PCRA standard, however, a petitioner can obtain relief only if "the .”
Lynch v. State, 2017 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-104(l)(f) — 3 cases
Neese v. State, 2017 UT App 164 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Glasscock v. State, 2017 UT App 39 (Utah Ct. App. 2017).
Cramer v. State, 2016 UT App 175 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
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.