Summary
The Utah Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not use Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to challenge a conviction based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel when the claim could have been brought under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act. The court concluded that the PCRA provides the exclusive remedy for such claims, even when procedural barriers may prevent litigation on the merits. The court affirmed the denial of Jesse Roger Ogden’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a criminal defendant may use Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) to challenge a conviction based on alleged ineffective assistance of trial counsel when the claim could have been brought under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act.
- Whether Ogden was entitled to a rule 23B remand to develop the record concerning his conflict-of-interest claim.
Holdings
- A criminal defendant may not circumvent the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act by bringing a rule 60(b)(6) motion to challenge a conviction when the claim could have been brought in a PCRA petition. The PCRA provides the exclusive remedy for such a challenge, even if procedural barriers might prevent the defendant from prevailing on the merits.
- Ogden was not entitled to a rule 23B remand because he could not pursue his conflict-of-interest claim in the rule 60(b) proceeding.
Key quotations
“A criminal defendant is not entitled to circumvent the PCRA by bringing a rule 60(b)(6) motion when the defendant’s claims could have been brought under the PCRA.” (¶ 33)
“Because the PCRA occupies the field, rule 60(b) simply does not apply where a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel as a basis to vacate a conviction.” (¶ 27)
Factual background
Ogden was charged with sodomy upon a child and aggravated sexual abuse of a child and retained Bradley Schofield as counsel. Schofield disclosed that he had previously represented Ogden in a divorce proceeding and was representing the victim's mother's then-current husband in an unrelated alimony-modification action. After the district court questioned Ogden about the possible conflict, Ogden stated that he understood the circumstances and declined additional time to consult another attorney; the court found that he waived any possible conflict. Ogden later pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, but waited approximately six years before seeking to vacate his conviction under rule 60(b)(6).
Procedural history
Ogden pleaded guilty in 2014 to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child and did not pursue a direct appeal or a petition under the Utah Post-Conviction Remedies Act. After the Utah Supreme Court vacated a restitution order and remanded for recalculation, Ogden moved under rule 60(b)(6) to vacate his conviction. The district court denied the motion on alternative grounds, including that the PCRA, rather than rule 60(b), was the proper vehicle and that the motion was untimely. The Utah Supreme Court affirmed without reaching the conflict-of-interest or timeliness issues.