Opinion ID: 2823421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: ¶1 This is Mr. Winward’s second appeal in a postconviction proceeding he initiated in 2009. On his first appeal, we affirmed the dismissal of most of his claims, concluding they were barred by the statute of limitations of the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA). Winward v. State, 2012 UT 85, ¶ 28, 293 P.3d 259. But we vacated the dismissal on one narrow issue: whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s new WINWARD v. STATE Opinion of the Court decisions in Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), and Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), created a new cause of action for Mr. Winward under Utah Code section 78B-9-104(1)(f). ¶2 We conclude now that they did not. Lafler and Frye announced a new rule, one not “dictated by precedent existing at the time [Mr. Winward’s] conviction or sentence became final.” UTAH CODE § 78B-9-104(1)(f)(i). Therefore, they do not give rise to a new cause of action under the PCRA, and Mr. Winward’s petition must be denied.