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

Utah Code § 78B-9-106 (2026)

Preclusion of relief -- Exception

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A petitioner is not eligible for relief under this chapter upon any ground that:
may still be raised on direct appeal or by a post-trial motion;
was raised or addressed in the trial court, at trial, or on appeal;
could have been but was not raised in the trial court, at trial, or on appeal;
was raised or addressed in any previous request for post-conviction relief or could have been, but was not, raised in a previous request for postconviction relief; or
is barred by the limitation period established in Section 78B-9-107.
The state may raise any of the procedural bars or time bar at any time, including during an appeal from an order granting or denying postconviction relief, unless the court determines that the state should have raised the time bar or procedural bar at an earlier time.
Any court may raise a procedural bar or time bar on the court's own motion, provided that the court gives the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Notwithstanding Subsection (1)(c), a petitioner may be eligible for relief on a basis that the ground could have been but was not raised in the trial court, at trial, or on appeal, if the failure to raise that ground was due to ineffective assistance of counsel.
Notwithstanding Subsections (1)(c) and (1)(d), a petitioner may be eligible for relief on a basis that the ground could have been but was not raised in the trial court, at trial, on appeal, or in a previous request for postconviction relief, if the failure to raise that ground was due to force, fraud, or coercion as defined in Section 76-5-308.
This section authorizes a merits review only to the extent required to address the exception set forth in Subsection (3).
This section does not apply to a petition filed under Part 3, Postconviction Testing of DNA, or Part 4, Postconviction Determination of Factual Innocence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 107 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 2008–2026 · leading case: Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). · cites it 15× “Gardner's execution in order to resolve the issues presented.”
Hand v. State, 2020 UT 8 (Utah 2020). · cites it 16× “Citing section 78B-9-106(1)(d) of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), the State contended that Hand’s petition was procedurally barred because it asserted claims that were “raised or addressed in any previous request for post-conviction relief” or that “could have been, but…”
Lynch v. State, 2017 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 27× “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(l)(b) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 18× “§ 78B-9-106(1). First, an individual is procedurally barred from post-conviction relief based on “any ground that .”
McCamey v. State, 2017 UT App 97 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 18× “McCamey does not specifically address the district court’s determination that the claim was precluded' by section 78B-9-106(l)(c) of the PCRA, See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(c) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). · cites it 7× “” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-106(1)(b), (d). And a claim is barred if it “could have been, but was not, raised in a previous request for post-conviction relief.”
McCloud v. State, 2019 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 14× “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(c). ¶35 "A defendant 'could have' raised a claim when he or his counsel [was] aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it.”
Zaragoza v. State, 2017 UT App 215 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(l)(b)-(c) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT App 190 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “¶ 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(3)). Thus, . “[w]here, as here, the petitioner directiy appealed his conviction and was represented by different counsel on appeal, the petitioner must demonstrate that failure to raise the claims on direct appeal…”
Johnson v. State, 267 P.3d 880 (Utah 2011). · cites it 9× “§ 78B-9-106(1)(b)-(c). "This rule applies to all claims, including constitutional questions.”
Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012). · cites it 5× “(quoting Ura Cone § 78B-9-106(1)(b)-(c)). . Id. ¶ 11 (alteration omitted) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Menzies v. State, 2014 UT 40 (Utah 2014). · cites it 4× “the petitioner had ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the United States Constitution or Utah Constitution."). 69 . Mr. Menzies raises two claims for the first time on appeal, both of which we decline to reach as unpreserved.”
Show all 107 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1) — 36 cases
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's execution in order to resolve the issues presented.”
State v. Hon. Boyden, 2019 UT 11 (Utah 2019).
State v. PRION, 2012 UT 15 (Utah 2012).
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-9-106(1). First, an individual is procedurally barred from post-conviction relief based on “any ground that .”
Bevan v. State, 2018 UT App 237 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1)(2023) — 1 case
Reid v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2023).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1)(a) — 2 cases
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's execution in order to resolve the issues presented.”
Socolov v. State, 2022 UT App 40 (Utah Ct. App. 2022).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1)(b) — 23 cases
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-106(1)(b), (d). And a claim is barred if it “could have been, but was not, raised in a previous request for post-conviction relief.”
Gregg v. State, 279 P.3d 396 (Utah 2012).
Jones v. State, 2020 UT App 125 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
Tillman v. State, 2012 UT App 289 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's execution in order to resolve the issues presented.”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1)(c) — 34 cases
McCloud v. State, 2019 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(c). ¶35 "A defendant 'could have' raised a claim when he or his counsel [was] aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it.”
Johnson v. State, 267 P.3d 880 (Utah 2011). “§ 78B-9-106(1)(b)-(c). "This rule applies to all claims, including constitutional questions.”
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015).
Berrett v. State, 2018 UT App 55 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
Kell v. State, 285 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2012).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1)(d) — 13 cases
Hand v. State, 2020 UT 8 (Utah 2020). “Citing section 78B-9-106(1)(d) of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA), the State contended that Hand’s petition was procedurally barred because it asserted claims that were “raised or addressed in any previous request for post-conviction relief” or that “could have been, but…”
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's execution in order to resolve the issues presented.”
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-9-106(1). First, an individual is procedurally barred from post-conviction relief based on “any ground that .”
Archuleta v. State, 2020 UT 62 (Utah 2020). “” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-106(1)(b), (d). And a claim is barred if it “could have been, but was not, raised in a previous request for post-conviction relief.”
Patterson v. State, 2021 UT 52 (Utah 2021).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(1)(e) — 3 cases
Gardner v. State, 2010 UT 46 (Utah 2010). “Gardner's execution in order to resolve the issues presented.”
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-9-106(1). First, an individual is procedurally barred from post-conviction relief based on “any ground that .”
Esparza-Recendez v. State, 2012 UT App 344 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(2) — 4 cases
Winward v. State, 293 P.3d 259 (Utah 2012).
Bevan v. State, 2021 UT App 107 (Utah Ct. App. 2021). “§ 78B-9-106(1). First, an individual is procedurally barred from post-conviction relief based on “any ground that .”
Gregg v. State, 279 P.3d 396 (Utah 2012).
Valenzuela-Lozoya v. West Valley City, 2015 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(2)(a) — 1 case
Landry v. State, 2012 UT App 350 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(2)(b) — 4 cases
Bevan v. State, 2018 UT App 237 (Utah Ct. App. 2018).
Washington v. State, 2026 UT App 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2026).
Esparza-Recendez v. State, 2012 UT App 344 (Utah Ct. App. 2012).
Schwenke v. State, 326 P.3d 684 (Utah Ct. App. 2014).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(2)(c) — 1 case
Anderson v. State of Utah (D. Utah 2023).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(3) — 15 cases
McCamey v. State, 2017 UT App 97 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “McCamey does not specifically address the district court’s determination that the claim was precluded' by section 78B-9-106(l)(c) of the PCRA, See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(c) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
Johnson v. State, 267 P.3d 880 (Utah 2011). “§ 78B-9-106(1)(b)-(c). "This rule applies to all claims, including constitutional questions.”
Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73 (Utah 2011).
Carter v. State, 289 P.3d 542 (Utah 2012).
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT App 190 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(3)). Thus, . “[w]here, as here, the petitioner directiy appealed his conviction and was represented by different counsel on appeal, the petitioner must demonstrate that failure to raise the claims on direct appeal…”
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(3)(a) — 10 cases
Jones v. State, 2020 UT App 125 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 (Utah 2020).
State v. Brown, 2021 UT 11 (Utah 2021).
Peterson v. State, 2024 UT App 159 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
Modes v. State, 2023 UT App 104 (Utah Ct. App. 2023).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(4) — 3 cases
Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012). “(quoting Ura Cone § 78B-9-106(1)(b)-(c)). . Id. ¶ 11 (alteration omitted) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted).”
Jones v. State, 2020 UT App 125 (Utah Ct. App. 2020).
Hamblin v. State, 2015 UT App 144 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(8) — 5 cases
Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56 (Utah 2015).
Alvarez-Delvalle v. State, 2015 UT App 126 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
Rynhart v. State, 2011 UT App 6 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Valenzuela-Lozoya v. West Valley City, 2015 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
Gutierrez v. State, 2016 UT App 101 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(b) — 2 cases
Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56 (Utah 2008).
Todd v. State, 2011 UT App 313 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(c) — 2 cases
McCloud v. State, 2019 UT App 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2019). “Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(c). ¶35 "A defendant 'could have' raised a claim when he or his counsel [was] aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it.”
Todd v. State, 2016 UT App 232 (Utah Ct. App. 2016).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(l) — 1 case
Vonberg v. Turley, 437 F. App'x 677 (10th Cir. 2011).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(l)(b) — 3 cases
Lynch v. State, 2017 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(l)(b) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
Zaragoza v. State, 2017 UT App 215 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(l)(b)-(c) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Johnston v. State of Utah, 345 F. App'x 333 (10th Cir. 2009).
— Utah Code § 78B-9-106(l)(c) — 4 cases
Gordon v. State, 2016 UT App 190 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “¶ 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(3)). Thus, . “[w]here, as here, the petitioner directiy appealed his conviction and was represented by different counsel on appeal, the petitioner must demonstrate that failure to raise the claims on direct appeal…”
McCamey v. State, 2017 UT App 97 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “McCamey does not specifically address the district court’s determination that the claim was precluded' by section 78B-9-106(l)(c) of the PCRA, See Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(1)(c) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
Zaragoza v. State, 2017 UT App 215 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(l)(b)-(c) (LexisNexis 2012).”
Lynch v. State, 2017 UT App 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 78B-9-106(l)(b) (Lexis-Nexis 2012).”
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.