Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Appeals court weighs whether Rule 60 ruling blocked petitioner from adding appellate‑counsel IAC claim
Summary
In Peterson v. State, a three‑judge Utah Court of Appeals panel heard arguments over whether the district court erred treating pro se filings as a Rule 60(b) motion and dismissing layered ineffective‑assistance claims as frivolous, and whether the court should have appointed counsel. Judges debated remand versus directing the motion to be granted.
Judge Ryan Tenney and a three‑judge panel heard oral argument in Peterson v. State over whether the district court misapplied Rule 60(b) and Rule 15(a) in dismissing post‑conviction claims and whether counsel should have been appointed. Dane Smallland, attorney for the appellant, told the court the petition did not seek to vacate Mr. Peterson’s convictions but instead asked the court to "advance the policy behind both rule 15 and rule 60" so litigants receive a full hearing on meritorious claims. He argued that the pro se filings met the low pleading burden and that the various judicial standards invoked in PCRA practice amount to a facial‑frivolous check rather than a high‑threshold…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
