Matthew v. Cook
This text of 754 P.2d 666 (Matthew v. Cook) 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.
Opinion
Plaintiff appeals from the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief brought under rule 65B(i) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. We affirm.
In 1985, plaintiff was sentenced to a minimum mandatory term for the crime of rape of a child. Utah Code Ann. § '76-5-402.1 (1978). He did not appeal from his conviction and sentence. In November of 1987, plaintiff brought his petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that the minimum mandatory sentencing statute under which he had been sentenced was unconstitutional. The trial court determined that plaintiff did not have a remedy through writ of habeas corpus and that the challenged statute was constitutional.
Our decision in State v. Bishop,
The trial court properly ruled that plaintiff had no redress through habeas corpus proceedings. The writ “is not a substitute for and cannot be used to perform the function of regular appellate review.” Codianna v. Morris,
The denial of the writ is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
754 P.2d 666, 81 Utah Adv. Rep. 10, 1988 Utah LEXIS 33, 1988 WL 39935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-v-cook-utah-1988.