This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter 2019 UT 3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. OSMAN MOHAMMED NOOR, Appellant. No. 20160797 Filed January 18, 2019 On Direct Appeal Third District, Salt Lake The Honorable Vernice S. Trease No. 09195211 Attorneys: Sean D. Reyes, Att’y Gen., Daniel W. Boyer, Asst. Solic. Gen., Salt Lake City, for appellee Samuel Alba, Robert T. Denny, Salt Lake City, for appellant CHIEF JUSTICE DURRANT authored the opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICE HIMONAS and JUSTICE PEARCE joined. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE and JUSTICE PETERSEN joined in the majority as to Section I. ASSOCIATE CHIEF JUSTICE LEE filed a dissenting opinion in which JUSTICE PETERSEN joined. CHIEF JUSTICE DURRANT, opinion of the Court: Introduction ¶1 Osman Mohammed Noor, a pro se petitioner and Somalian refugee, timely filed a petition under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) seeking relief from his convictions. In his original petition, he claimed that relief under the PCRA was warranted because, among other reasons, his trial counsel was ineffective in STATE v. NOOR Opinion of the Court failing to alert the district court to his lack of fluency with the English language and his cultural background. Before the district court determined the merits of his petition, the court appointed Mr. Noor pro bono counsel, but only after the one-year statute of limitations period on his PCRA petitions had expired. With permission from the court, pro bono counsel amended his petition by removing all previous claims from the original petition and replacing them with a claim that Mr. Noor’s trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to secure competent interpreters for Mr. Noor at trial, (2) failing to allow him to participate in his own defense, and (3) failing to inform him that he would be deported if convicted. ¶2 The State moved to dismiss the allegations raised in the amended petition, arguing that they were time-barred under the PCRA’s statute of limitations and that the amended claim in the amended petition did not arise out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the original claims, as required by rule 15(c) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court agreed with the State and held that the amended petition was time-barred under the PCRA. ¶3 On appeal, Mr. Noor argues that the district court erred in applying rule 15(c) to his amended petition because (1) the court had sufficient discretion to review his amended petition irrespective of whether the petition was filed after the one-year limitations period, and (2) rule 15(c) does not apply to amendments to PCRA petitions. Alternatively, he argues that if rule 15(c) does apply, his claim in the amended petition arises from the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence as the claim set forth in the original petition, and so his new claim is not time barred but instead relates back to the date of the original petition. ¶4 We hold that ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals