Opinion ID: 2519774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: applicability of the pcra to julian's amended petition

Text: ¶ 10 The State argues that because Julian amended his petition after the enactment of the PCRA, the habeas court erred by not reviewing Julian's amended petition under the heightened standard contained in the PCRA. ¶ 11 Section 78-35a-103 of the PCRA provides, however, that this chapter applies only to post-conviction relief proceedings filed on or after July 1, 1996. Utah Code Ann. § 78-35a-103 (1999). Julian's December 1995 petition for post-conviction relief will constitute the same proceeding until its final resolution on appeal. See Boucofski v. Jacobsen, 36 Utah 165, 172, 104 P. 117, 120 (1909) (stating that [a] case is pending from the time of its commencement until its final determination on appeal). Julian's amendment of the original petition is part of the original proceeding; it does not constitute a separate one. See Black's Law Dictionary 1204 (6th ed.1990) (stating that a proceeding includes all possible steps in an action from its commencement to the execution of judgment). Consequently, section 78-35a-103 precludes application of the PCRA to Julian's amended petition. ¶ 12 Even if the PCRA were silent as to its effective date, it still would not apply to Julian's amended petition. [S]tatutory enactments which affect substantive or vested rights generally operate only prospectively [and] the substantive law to be applied throughout an action is the law in effect at the date the action was initiated. Dep't of Social Servs. v. Higgs, 656 P.2d 998, 1000 (Utah 1982). Law is substantive if it creates, defines and regulates the rights and duties of the parties and ... may give rise to a cause for action, as distinguished from [procedural] law which pertains to and prescribes the practice and procedure or the legal machinery by which the substantive law is determined or made effective. Petty v. Clark, 113 Utah 205, 214, 192 P.2d 589, 593-94 (1948); see also Higgs, 656 P.2d at 1000-01 (stating that statutes which do not enlarge, eliminate, or destroy vested or contractual rights apply not only to future actions but also to accrued and pending actions as well.) Section 78-35a-102 states that the PCRA is a substantive legal remedy for any person who challenges a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and who has exhausted all other legal remedies. As such, it replaces prior remedies that challenge a conviction or sentence for a criminal offense and may not be applied retroactively to Julian's post-conviction relief action. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-35a-102(1) (entitled Replacement of Prior Remedies). We therefore affirm the habeas court's decision not to apply the PCRA to Julian's amended petition.