Case Brief: State v Flores, 2025 UT App 15

Posted by Stone River Criminal Defense Team

Last Updated: February 19, 2025

The prison mailbox rule is for cases where a document actually reaches the court directly through the prison mail system.
attorney meeting with client at desk

Facts of the Case

In 2024 Flores filed a notice of appeal seeking review of a conviction from 2016 for sexual abuse of a child. Flores explained in a letter to the Second District Court that he had attempted to file his notice of appeal in November 2016 by depositing the notice in the prison mail system, but the letter had been returned unsent. A notice of appeal generally must be filed with the trial court within 30 days of the entry of conviction. The prison mailbox rule of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, however, allows a notice of appeal to be considered as filed on the day it is placed in the prison mail system. This rule allows for reasonable delays in mailing or processing at the prison mail office.

Issue

Does the prison mailbox rule apply to Flores’s unsent 2016 notice of appeal, allowing his current notice of appeal to be considered timely?

Analysis

The prison mailbox rule states that papers filed from a correctional facility must be accompanied by a notarized statement or written declaration of the date of mailing, and a statement that first-class postage has been prepaid. Within Flores’s 2024 letter to the district court Flores included what was purportedly a copy of the 2016 notice of appeal, and a signed declaration dated November 28, 2016. The declaration, however, did not state that first-class postage had been prepaid, possibly explaining why the letter had been returned to Flores unsent.

The prison mailbox rule allows for a situation where a document reaches the court for filing. If the document is accompanied by the proper declaration, the court may accept the filing as timely, even if thirty days have passed. Flores’s alleged 2016 notice of appeal never reached the court. The document and declaration thus had no opportunity to be reviewed for timeliness.

Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the prison mailbox rule is only applicable in cases where a document actually reaches the court directly through the prison mail system. Flores’s alleged 2016 notice of appeal never reached the court to begin with. Because the prison mailbox rule does not apply, Flores’s current notice of appeal is considered untimely.

 

 

Originally Published: February 19, 2025

How can we help you?

Call us at 801-448-7451, or use this contact form.

    Related Articles

    State v Smith, 2025 UT App 35 – Destroyed Evidence
    Smith was convicted by a jury at trial on a felony charge of rape. He raised several issues on appeal, including multiple claims of ineffective...
    March 20, 2025
    Utah Supreme Court Vacates Juvenile Life Sentence in State v. Mullins
    The Utah Supreme Court recently vacated the life-without-parole (JLWOP) sentence of Morris Thomas Mullins, a juvenile offender who had spent over two...
    March 20, 2025
    Dismissed With Prejudice vs. Dismissed Without Prejudice in Utah Criminal Cases
    When a criminal case in Utah is dismissed, it can be either with prejudice or without prejudice. The difference determines whether the charges can be...
    March 20, 2025

    Ready to explore our other articles?