Archuleta v. Galetka, 960533
| Decision Date | 26 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 960533,960533 |
| Citation | 960 P.2d 399 |
| Parties | 346 Utah Adv. Rep. 17 Michael Anthony ARCHULETA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Hank GALETKA, Warden, Utah State Prison, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
M. David Eckersley, Salt Lake City, and Karen A. Chaney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jan Graham, Attorney General, Kris C. Leonard, Assistant Attorney General, Salt Lake City, for Defendant and Appellee.
Plaintiff Michael Anthony Archuleta was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to death. We affirmed the conviction and sentence in State v. Archuleta, 850 P.2d 1232, 1248 (Utah 1993). Thereafter, Archuleta filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, challenging his conviction on the ground that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel both at the trial of his case and on the appeal of the conviction. The petition alleged that the ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal was legally prejudicial. In the habeas proceeding, the district court dismissed the petition on the ground that the claims asserted by Archuleta were procedurally barred because they could have been raised on direct appeal and were not.
The district court erred in ruling that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was based on the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, was barred. See Dunn v. Cook, 791 P.2d 873, 878-79 (Utah 1990); see also Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516, 521 (Utah 1994); Fernandez v. Cook, 783 P.2d 547, 549-50 (Utah 1989).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Archuleta v. Galetka
...which was based on the allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on appeal, was barred.” Archuleta v. Galetka ( Archuleta II ), 960 P.2d 399 (Utah 1998). The case was accordingly remitted to the district court for a hearing on Archuleta's ineffective assistance of counsel......
-
Archuleta v. State
...of counsel against his trial and appellate lawyers. We remanded his petition for further proceedings. See Archuleta v. Galetka (Archuleta II ), 960 P.2d 399, 399 (Utah 1998).¶8 Four years later in 2002, Archuleta filed his second petition for post-conviction relief (2002 Petition), raising ......
- Discipline of Tanner, Matter of