Benvenuto v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Utah affirmed the denial of Jorge Martin Benvenuto’s petition for post-conviction relief. Benvenuto argued that Utah violated his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to notify him of his right to consular communication and that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue. The court held that his claims were procedurally and time barred, and that he failed to establish ineffective assistance, prejudice, or an adequate basis for an interests-of-justice exception.

Holdings

1. Benvenuto's Vienna Convention claims were procedurally barred because they could have been raised at trial or on appeal but were not.
2. Benvenuto failed to establish ineffective assistance of trial, post-plea, or appellate counsel.
3. Benvenuto failed to demonstrate that law enforcement violated his Vienna Convention right to consular notification because the authorities were not aware, and reasonably could not have been aware, that he was a foreign national.
4. Even assuming a Vienna Convention notification violation occurred, Benvenuto's knowing and voluntary guilty pleas waived the alleged nonjurisdictional treaty violation.
5. Benvenuto's petition was time barred, and he did not establish grounds for excusing the untimely filing in the interests of justice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Benvenuto's Vienna Convention consular-notification claims were procedurally barred because they could have been raised at trial or on direct appeal.
2. Whether ineffective assistance of trial, post-plea, or appellate counsel excused the procedural bar.
3. Whether Benvenuto's petition was untimely under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act and qualified for the statute's interests-of-justice exception.
4. Whether the alleged failure to provide consular notification entitled Benvenuto to post-conviction relief or permitted withdrawal of his guilty pleas.

Disposition

affirmed