Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

960 P.2d 399

346 UtahAdv.Rep. 17

Archuleta v. Galetka

Utah Supreme Court

Decided June 26, 1998

Utah Supreme Court · decided 1998-06-26

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“challeng[led] 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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Archuleta v. Galetka

“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.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Archuleta v. Galetka

Relies on Parsons v. Barnes · State v. Archuleta · Fernandez v. Cook

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2024

9 state decisions

301998200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

STEWART, Justice:

¶1Plaintiff 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.

¶2The 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).

¶3Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

HOWE, C.J., DURHAM, Associate C.J., and ZIMMERMAN and RUSSON, JJ., concur in Justice STEWART’s opinion.
/960/p2d/399 · .json · Public domain