Utah Code » Title 78B, Chapter 9 — Postconviction Remedies Act; part 78B-9-4 — Postconviction Determination of Factual Innocence
Utah Code

Utah Code § 78B-9-401 (2026)

Title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This part is known as "Postconviction Determination of Factual Innocence."

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Miller v. State, 2010 UT App 25 (Utah Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Miller v. State, 2010 UT App 25 (Utah Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78B-9-401 to -405 (2008 & Supp.”
Thompson v. State, 2024 UT 27 (Utah 2024). · cites it 2× “” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-401. For simplicity, we refer to it throughout this opinion as the factual innocence statute.”
Meinhard v. State, 2016 UT 12 (Utah 2016). “See Uran Cops § 78B-9-401 to -405. Thus, a petitioner who discovers a new witness or new physical evidence, or secures a new confession, could advance such evidence in a proceeding under Part 4.”
Socolov v. State, 2022 UT App 40 (Utah Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “Finally, the district court ruled that a claim of factual innocence must be filed under the separate provisions beginning at Utah Code section 78B-9-401, and could not be combined with Socolov’s other challenges to his convictions.”
Wood (D. Utah 2026). · cites it 2× “Petitioner's sixth claim asserts that the Utah courts unfairly denied him the opportunity to establish his factual innocence as available under Utah Code Section 78B-9-401, et seq. Petitioner offers no support for his argument that lack of access to Utah specific legal materials…”
Branch v. State, 2015 UT App 204 (Utah Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 78B-9-107(4) ("The statute of limitations is tolled during the pendency of the outcome of a petition asserting: (a) exoneration through DNA testing under Section 78B-9-303; or (b) factual innocence under Section 78B-9-401."). However, the State correctly notes that Branch's…”
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.