Gailey v State

Gailey sought to appeal her burglary conviction by guilty plea arguing the plea was not voluntary or knowing. The Court, with two justices concurring in judgment, dismissed the appeal. The majority held that under Utah case law and Utah Code 77-13-6, defendants are procedurally barred from challenging the knowingness or voluntariness of a guilty plea after sentencing has been announced and any review must be obtained through post-conviction proceedings. It held that this statutory scheme does not violate the right to appeal in Utah Constitution Article I, Section 12 because review, including appellate review, is available through the post-conviction relief process and declined to rule on Gailey’s Sixth Amendment claims concerning the lack of a right to state paid appointed counsel and the lack of a right to effective assistance of counsel in post-conviction proceedings as she has not field such a petition nor been denied either appointed counsel or effective assistance  and thus her claims are not ripe. Associate Chief Justice Lee, joined by Durrant, concurred in judgment arguing 77-13-6 does not deny a right to appeal but imposes a rule of preservation which Gailey did not follow and thus she waived her right to have the knowingness and voluntariness of her pela reviewed and such rules of waiver have never been held to violate the right to appeal. He also argued that its I unclear whether a right to counsel or effective assistance thereof is part of the constitutional right to appeal and thus required in post-conviction challenges to guilty pleas and argued the majority should not have opined on these subjects.