Court Opinion

ID: 9586210
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:08:16.840322+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:52.067551
License: Public Domain

RUSSON, Justice,
concurring and dissenting:
¶ 38 I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the court of appeals improperly applied Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(e) to treat the merits of defendant’s merger argument.' Because the court of appeals relied upon this improper basis for assessing the validity of defendant’s conviction for aggravated kidnaping, it failed to address the only proper basis for treating the merits of defendant’s merger argument: ineffective assistance of counsel. See State v. Finlayson, 956 P.2d 283, 293 (Utah Ct.App.1998).
¶ 39 Nevertheless, I dissent from the majority’s decision to treat the ineffectiveness argument on certiorari. That analysis should be performed in the first instance by the court of appeals, before this court addresses it. Otherwise, we review an ineffectiveness argument that was never treated by the court to which we have issued the writ— a practice that violates the fundamental principles of certiorari review. See Reese v. Reese, 984 P.2d 987, 991 (Utah 1999). Having concluded that the court of appeals erroneously failed to address defendant’s ineffective assistance argument as to the merger issue, our inquiry ends, and we must remand to the court of appeals for proper analysis of that question.
¶ 40 Chief Justice HOWE concurs in Justice RUSSON’s concurring and dissenting opinion.