Pinder v. State

17 Citing cases

  1. Pinder v. Crowther

    No. 19-4039 (10th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Denying John's request for a certificate of appealability to challenge the federal district court's dismissal of his habeas petition

    I. Background We take the following factual recitation from the opinion of the Utah Supreme Court (USC) affirming the denial of Mr. Pinder's petition for post-conviction relief, which, as the USC noted, "is presented in a light favorable to the prosecution, and consistent with the judgment of conviction," Pinder v. State, 367 P.3d 968, 969 n.1 (Utah 2015) (Pinder II): John Pinder owned a sprawling ostrich ranch in Duchesne County.

  2. Pinder v. Crowther

    Case No. 2:16-CV-189-DN (D. Utah Mar. 6, 2019)

    As for the motion to amend, the court denied it in its order granting summary judgment, but without explaining its reasons for doing so.Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶¶ 4-19. Pinder timely appealed, asserting two sets of claims for relief: (1) He presented newly discovered evidence of witnesses Alvarez and Heaps, apparently to show Pinder's innocence.

  3. Gordon v. State

    2016 UT App. 190 (Utah Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 7 times
    In Gordon, the defendant argued "that his right to due process was violated when the police failed to collect or preserve... critical physical evidence from the crime scene."

    Rudolph v. Galetka , 2002 UT 7, ¶ 5, 43 P.3d 467 (per curiam). A “defendant ‘could have’ raised a claim when he or his counsel is aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it.” Pinder v. State , 2015 UT 56, ¶ 44, 367 P.3d 968. “And that conclusion holds even when the defendant later discovers additional evidence providing further support for the claim.” Id.

  4. McCloud v. State

    2019 UT App. 35 (Utah Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 4 times

    "Thus, the general rule is that the procedural bar applies to claims known to a defendant or his counsel" at the time of the defendant’s appeal. Pinder v. State , 2015 UT 56, ¶ 44, 367 P.3d 968. ¶36 Traditionally, "the general procedural rules applicable to most issues raised on direct appeal did not always pertain to claims of trial counsel’s ineffectiveness."

  5. Gordon v. State

    382 P.3d 1063 (Utah 2017)

    A "defendant `could have' raised a claim when he or his counsel is aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it." Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶ 44, 367 P.3d 968. "And that conclusion holds even when the defendant later discovers additional evidence providing further support for the claim." Id.

  6. McCloud v. State

    2021 UT 51 (Utah 2021)   Cited 15 times
    Reasoning that because " satisfactory showing of both parts of the Strickland test is required for the defendant to prevail," "it is not necessary … to address both components of the inquiry if we determine that a defendant has made an insufficient showing on one" (cleaned up)

    "Our cases establish that a defendant =could have' raised a claim when he or his counsel is aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it." Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶ 44, 367 P.3d 968. Below, the court of appeals determined that McCloud "could have" raised his ineffectiveness claims on appeal because, at the time, "[b]oth McCloud and Appellate Counsel were aware of these potential claims and the essential factual basis for asserting them."

  7. McCloud v. State (In re C.Z.)

    2021 UT 14 (Utah 2021)

    "Our cases establish that a defendant 'could have' raised a claim when he or his counsel is aware of the essential factual basis for asserting it." Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶ 44, 367 P.3d 968. Below, the court of appeals determined that McCloud "could have" raised his ineffectiveness claims on appeal because, at the time, "[b]oth McCloud and Appellate Counsel were aware of these potential claims and the essential factual basis for asserting them."

  8. Lynch v. State

    2017 UT App. 86 (Utah Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 3 times

    We present the facts "in a light favorable to the prosecution, and consistent with the judgment of conviction." Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶ 5 n.1, 367 P.3d 968. ¶ 3 Victim was Lynch's wife.

  9. Patterson v. State

    2021 UT 52 (Utah 2021)   Cited 10 times
    In Patterson, the Utah Supreme Court rejected a petitioner's application to the Utah Supreme Court's constitutional writ authority.

    And again in 2015, we noted that Hurst's "common law 'exceptions' . . . were repudiated by the legislature in 2008." Pinder v. State, 2015 UT 56, ¶ 56, 367 P.3d 968. ¶184 However, the adoption of rule 65C, and our acceptance of the PCRA's narrowed set of exceptions to the procedural bars, precipitated another question: Were the broader, open-ended exceptions that we abolished constitutionally required?

  10. Pinder v. Duchesne Cnty. Sheriff

    2020 UT 68 (Utah 2020)   Cited 15 times

    His latest challenge to those convictions—a federal habeas petition—was rejected earlier this year. See Pinder v. Crowther , 803 F. App'x 165, 167 (10th Cir. 2020) (denying John's request for a certificate of appealability to challenge the federal district court's dismissal of his habeas petition); Pinder v. State , 2015 UT 56, ¶¶ 1–3, 367 P.3d 968 (affirming the dismissal of John's petition for relief under the Post–Conviction Remedies Act); Pinder I , 2005 UT 15, ¶¶ 1, 19 n.2, 114 P.3d 551 (affirming, on direct appeal, John's convictions of two counts of aggravated murder and related crimes). ¶7 Starting in 2009, the Pinders brought four actions (the first in the Eighth District Court, the second in federal district court, the third in the Third District Court, and the fourth in the Fourth District Court) to recover the seized property or damages.