Opinion ID: 2543365
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claims Raised in Amicus Brief in Carter I

Text: ¶ 10 On direct appeal in Carter I, the ACLU filed an amicus curiae brief, expanding on the issues raised by Carter and raising a number of additional issues. In Carter's petition for habeas corpus he attempts to re-argue some issues relating to the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel raised by the ACLU in Carter I. However, because these issues were raised and decided on direct appeal, they are procedurally barred and may not be raised again in Carter's habeas petition. The following is a list of these issues: (1) Trial counsel was ineffective for (a) not investigating the circumstances under which Carter confessed to the crime, (b) not being familiar with Utah law, (c) not presenting evidence to support Carter's motion for a change of venue, (d) failing to cross-examine the State's medical expert, (e) presenting no defense on Carter's behalf, and (f) failing to object to the jury instructions. ¶ 11 Carter asserts that these issues cannot be treated as previously raised and disposed of because Carter did not raise them himself. He claims that the issues raised by the ACLU cannot be attributed to him because an amicus curiae cannot extend or enlarge the issues on appeal. Carter further argues that the above-listed issues are not procedurally barred because this court did not specifically address these issues in its opinion in Carter I. ¶ 12 We find Carter's argument to be without merit for two reasons. First, after the ACLU filed its amicus brief, Carter filed a second supplemental brief in which he specifically adopted the arguments made by the ACLU regarding the alleged ineffectiveness of trial counsel. In Carter's second supplemental brief, he stated, This brief supports totally the arguments of amicus curiae as regards [the ineffectiveness of trial counsel] issue and wishes to emphasize that the inadequacies noted in that brief are not matters involving tactical decisions but products of an obviously apparent failure to prepare. Because Carter himself adopted the issues raised by the amicus and placed before the court in Carter I, these issues are properly attributable to him and are considered previously raised and ruled upon for the purposes of Carter's habeas petition. ¶ 13 Second, Carter's argument that the issues raised in the amicus brief are not barred because this court did not specifically address them in its opinion in Carter I is also without merit. In Carter I, we stated, after fully reviewing every claim raised in the instant case, we discuss at length only those issues critical to this appeal. 776 P.2d at 889 (emphasis added and footnote omitted). As we explained, every claim raisedwhether raised by Carter, the State, or the amicus curiaewas reviewed and decided by the court. Therefore, the issues previously raised in the amicus brief in Carter I are subject to the procedural bar because they have been previously raised and ruled upon.