Archuleta v. Galetka

Utah Supreme Court

Archuleta v. Galetka

960 P.2d 399, 346 Utah Adv. Rep. 17, 1998 Utah LEXIS 38, 1998 WL 337787

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1998

DocketNo. 960533

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 960 P.2d 399 (Archuleta v. Galetka) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Archuleta v. Galetka, 960 P.2d 399, 346 Utah Adv. Rep. 17, 1998 Utah LEXIS 38, 1998 WL 337787 (Utah 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

STEWART, Justice:

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Archuleta was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1248 (Utah 1993). Thereafter, Archule-ta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, challenging his conviction on the ground that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel both at the trial of his case and on the appeal of the conviction. The petition alleged that the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal was legally prejudicial. In the habeas proceeding, the district court dismissed the petition on the ground that the claims asserted by Archuleta were procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal and were not.

The district court erred in ruling that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was based on the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, was barred. See Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 878-79 (Utah 1990); see also Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 521 (Utah 1994); Fernandez v. Cook, 783 P.2d 547, 549-50 (Utah 1989).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

HOWE, C.J., DURHAM, Associate C.J., and ZIMMERMAN and RUSSON, JJ., concur in Justice STEWART’s opinion.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

STEWART, Justice:

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Archuleta was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1248 (Utah 1993). Thereafter, Archule-ta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, challenging his conviction on the ground that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel both at the trial of his case and on the appeal of the conviction. The petition alleged that the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal was legally prejudicial. In the habeas proceeding, the district court dismissed the petition on the ground that the claims asserted by Archuleta were procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal and were not.

The district court erred in ruling that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was based on the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, was barred. See Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 878-79 (Utah 1990); see also Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 521 (Utah 1994); Fernandez v. Cook, 783 P.2d 547, 549-50 (Utah 1989).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

HOWE, C.J., DURHAM, Associate C.J., and ZIMMERMAN and RUSSON, JJ., concur in Justice STEWART’s opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

960 P.2d 399, 346 Utah Adv. Rep. 17, 1998 Utah LEXIS 38, 1998 WL 337787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/archuleta-v-galetka-utah-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack