Opinion
Case No. 20080242-CA.
Filed May 30, 2008. Not For Official Publication
Appeal from the Fourth District, Fillmore Department, 070700156, The Honorable Darold J. McDade.
Lance Conway Wood, Boise, Idaho, Appellant Pro Se.
Before Judges Billings, Davis, and McHugh.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
This matter is before the court on its sua sponte motion for summary disposition. Lance Conway Wood appeals from the district court's dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. We affirm.
Utah Code section 78-35a-107(1) states that "[a] petitioner is entitled to relief [under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act] only if the petition is filed within one year after the cause of action has accrued." Utah Code Ann. § 78-35a-107(1) (Supp. 2007). A cause of action accrues on the latest of several dates, including "the last day for filing a petition for writ of certiorari in the Utah Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court, if no petition for writ of certiorari is filed." Id. § 78-35a-107(2)(c). However, "[i]f the court finds that the interests of justice require, a court may excuse a petitioner's failure to file within the time limitations." Id. § 78-35a-107(3).
In his petition for post-conviction relief, Wood alleged that (1) he was innocent of the charges of which he was ultimately convicted, (2) he was an agent of Adult Probation and Parole at the time of the crimes, (3) his trial counsel was ineffective, (4) his appellate counsel was ineffective, and (5) the prosecutor acted inappropriately and fabricated evidence. All these issues were known to Wood at the time his direct appeal was resolved by the Utah Supreme Court. However, Wood did not file his petition for post-conviction relief until September of 2007, approximately thirteen years after the expiration date for seeking review of his direct appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the filing of his recent petition is untimely. See id. § 78-35a-107(2)(c). Accordingly, the petition is barred by the Post-Conviction Remedies Act's one year statute of limitations unless the court finds that the interests of justice excuse the untimely filing. See id. § 78-35a-107(3). Wood fails to demonstrate that the interests of justice exception applies to his case. First, Wood fails to provide an adequate reason as to why he waited thirteen years to raise these issues in a petition for post-conviction relief. See Adams v. State, 2005 UT 62, ¶ 16, 123 P.3d 400. Further, he fails to point to sufficient legal or factual authority to demonstrate that his claims are meritorious. See id. ¶ 20. Thus, the district court did not err in concluding that Wood's petition for post-conviction relief was barred by the one-year statute of limitations.
Affirmed.