Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Alexander

Utah Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 2012No. 20090829Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Lee

57 I concur in large part in Chief Justice Durrant's opinion for the court, but take issue with two points in the majority's analysis. First, I disagree with the court's decision to resolve on appeal the question whether Alexander had knowledge of the elements of the crime he pled guilty to. That question was neither pressed by Alexander in his motion to withdraw nor resolved by the district court on the record. Because our opinion today breaks new ground in clarifying the centrality of that issue, we should not fault the parties (least of all the non-moving party) for failing to present…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Pullman-Standard v. SwintSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  2. State v. PenaUtah Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Bradshaw v. StumpfSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
  4. State v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 2001
  5. State v. HardingUtah Supreme Court · 2011

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API