B. Mr. Gregg Gotten Inadequate Assistance of Appellate The recommendations
¶ 43 Mr. Gregg along with contends that he received ineffective assistance from their appellate the advice whenever appellate the advice did not argue that demonstration the advice did deficiently with regards to the LDSSO elizabeth-mails while the 47-second period. The official argues one to Mr. Gregg’s says “might have been increased” toward direct attract, which means that is procedurally banned underneath the PCRA, Utah Password part 78-35a-106(1)(c). Gregg’s states regarding your 47-time time and you will Ms. S.is why LDSSO age-emails were procedurally prohibited “as they could have been increased to the head desire.” And in their short term to this courtroom, the state Lawyer General’s place of work again argues you to Mr. Gregg “`you certainly will have’ increased [these] ineffective assistance allege[s] for the head interest.” Ergo, the entire push of your State’s argument is that these claims is procedurally prohibited in PCRA, Utah Code section 78-35a-106(1)(c). 11 But so it argument ignores the brand new PCRA’s exclusion, that gives that “a man may be eligible for