Opinion ID: 2633526
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: manning has replaced the nunc pro tunc resentencing scheme

Text: ¶ 8 Manning v. State [5] provides the starting point for our discussion. In Manning, we held that nunc pro tunc resentencing is no longer the appropriate remedy for defendants who have been denied their constitutional right to appeal. [6] In its place, we instituted a new remedy for defendants who have been denied their right to pursue an appeal through no fault of their own. [7] ¶ 9 Under the Manning procedure, a defendant who can establish that he has been unconstitutionally denied the right to appeal may make a motion in the trial or sentencing court [to] reinstate the time frame for filing a direct appeal. [8] A defendant seeking reinstatement bears the burden of showing an unconstitutional denial of his right to appeal by a preponderance of the evidence. [9] In Manning, we identified a nonexclusive list of circumstances, drawn from our prior case law, under which we had found an unconstitutional denial of a defendant's right to appeal. [10] Those circumstances were that (1) the defendant asked his or her attorney to file an appeal but the attorney, after agreeing to file, failed to do so; (2) the defendant diligently but futilely attempted to appeal within the statutory time frame without fault on the defendant's part; or (3) the court or the defendant's attorney failed to properly advise [the] defendant of the right to appeal. [11] ¶ 10 Because Cox's case arguably falls within these enumerated circumstances, he could have simply pursued a Manning remedy in the trial court. Instead, Cox asked the court of appeals to remand his case and direct the trial court to take the action necessary to reinstate his right to appeal. We therefore address whether an appellate court can direct a trial court to give such relief.