Opinion ID: 1244705
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: waiver/procedural default standard

Text: Defendant raises several of his issues for the first time on appeal. Despite his failure to preserve these issues below, he argues that we should reach the merits of his claims under a liberty interest exception noted by this court in State v. Breckenridge, 688 P.2d 440, 443 (Utah 1983). In Breckenridge, the defendant raised a due process claim for the first time on appeal. The defendant, who worked at a bodyshop, was charged with arson. During a confession, he stated that he had decided to dispose of a pile of car parts that had accumulated in the corner of the building by burning them with a paint gun and cutting torch. The fire spread out of control and damaged the building. Id. at 442. Without any factual basis indicating that the defendant intentionally damaged the building, the trial court accepted his plea of guilty to a charge of arson under Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-102. On appeal, Breckenridge argued that his right to due process was violated because the court accepted his guilty plea without his understanding the nature and elements of arson and without a showing that there was any factual basis upon which to base conviction of a crime. Breckenridge at 443. We agreed that his right to due process was substantially affected. Id. at 444. Rule 103(d) of the Utah Rules of Evidence provides that we may take notice of plain error that affects the substantial rights of a party even though the error was not brought to the attention of the court. In State v. Eldredge, 773 P.2d 29 (Utah), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 814, 110 S.Ct. 62, 107 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989), we described the two requirements for finding plain error. First, from our review of the record we must determine that it should have been obvious to a trial court that it was committing error. Second, the error must be harmful in that it affects the substantial rights of the accused. See id. at 35 and cases cited therein. In Breckenridge, this court commented, The general rule that constitutional issues not raised at trial cannot be raised on appeal is excepted to when a person's liberty is at stake. 688 P.2d at 443. We acknowledge that this language, although only an incidental comment in a case with clear plain error and obvious constitutional ramifications, has resulted in some confusion regarding the waiver/procedural default rule. See State v. Jameson, 800 P.2d 798, 802-03 (Utah 1990); State v. Harrison, 805 P.2d 769, 779 n. 13 (Utah Ct.App.), cert. denied, 817 P.2d 327 (1991); State v. Hargraves, 806 P.2d 228, 231-32 (Utah Ct.App.1991). Breckenridge was a case of plain error in which the Eldredge standard was clearly met. We did not intend in Breckenridge to carve out an additional exception to our traditional plain error standard, and we now expressly disavow any implications to that effect. We therefore review the issues raised in this case for the first time on appeal using the plain error standard.