Court Opinion

ID: 9790886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:00:53.848667+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:32.360272
License: Public Domain

HALL, Chief Justice
(dissenting):
I do not join the opinion of the Court because I do not agree that the issue of ineffectiveness of trial counsel could not have been raised as part of the second appeal. Rather, I am of the view that the issue could and should have been raised in *551that appeal.1
Both the first and the second appeal raised the same solitary issue, namely, the propriety of the sentence imposed. It is understandable why the first appeal did not raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel because it was filed by trial counsel now alleged to have been ineffective. However, plaintiff filed the second appeal pro se, yet did. not see fit to raise the additional issue. Shortly thereafter, he obtained the assistance of present appellate counsel, who reached the conclusions that the sentencing issue was without merit and that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim afforded a more likely ground for relief. However, rather than pursue the issue on appeal, counsel chose to dismiss the pro se appeal and in lieu thereof sought habeas corpus relief.
Plaintiff does not contend that he was in any way precluded from raising all of his claims on direct appeal. On the contrary, he concedes that he voluntarily dismissed his second appeal with the intention of seeking habeas corpus relief as a preferred substitute.
Plaintiff’s deliberate by-pass of direct appeal review affords no basis for a finding of “unusual circumstances” or “good cause” necessary to justify extraordinary relief within the contemplation of rule 65B(i), Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.2
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

. Codianna v. Morris, 660 P.2d 1101, 1104-05 (Utah 1983).

. Id.; see State v. West, 765 P.2d 891, 897-902 (Utah 1988) (Hall, C.J., dissenting).