education
admissions
Ann Marie “Annie” Taliaferro has practiced with Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat since graduating from law school in 2000 and became a partner and shareholder in 2015. Her practice focuses on criminal defense trial work, criminal appeals, post-conviction advocacy, and civil rights litigation.
As a member of the Utah State Bar, Annie is licensed to practice before all Utah state and federal courts. She is also licensed to practice before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
She has long been active in Utah’s legal community and has served on numerous boards, commissions, task forces, and committees, including the Utah Supreme Court Standing Committee on Appellate Representation, the Utah State Sentencing Commission, the Utah Appellate Judicial Nominating Commission, the Utah Supreme Court AdvisoryCommittee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals CJA Standing Committee, the Utah Supreme Court and Judicial Council Task Force on Justice Court Reform, the Rocky Mountain Innocence Center Case Oversight Committee, and the Utah County Conviction Integrity Unit.
Annie is qualified for appointment to represent indigent defendants in appellate and post-conviction proceedings and frequently represents indigent clients before the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. She is also a member of the Utah Appellate Roster. Her professional affiliations include the Utah Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and Women Lawyers of Utah.
Before attending law school, Annie worked as a high school teacher and coach. She earned her Juris Doctor from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, where she was a William H. Leary Scholar. During law school, she served as a staff writer and Note & Comment Editor for the Utah Law Review. As an undergraduate, she completed a summer internship with the Office of the Curator at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Annie is a member of The Appellate Lawyers. You can view her profile here.
State v. Rippey, 2024 UT 45
After years of litigation challenging the constitutionality of Utah’s Plea Withdrawal Statute, the Utah Supreme Court held that key provisions of the statute are unconstitutional. As a result, the statute no longer bars defendants from challenging guilty pleas on direct appeal. The decision marked a significant shift in Utah criminal appellate law, restoring an important avenue of appellate review for defendants who plead guilty and expanding access to relief from invalid pleas.
State v. Smith, 2025 UT 45
The Utah Supreme Court held that when a criminal defendant raises a statute-of-limitations defense, the issue must be decided by the trial judge—not the jury—by a preponderance of the evidence under Utah Code § 76-1-306. The court reversed the district court’s contrary approach and remanded for a judicial determination of whether the prosecution was time-barred.
Newton v. State, 2025 UT 50
The Utah Supreme Court held that post conviction petitioners may file motions for summary judgment under Utah’s Post Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) because neither the PCRA nor Rule 65C prohibits them. The court clarified that petitioners may bring stand-alone summary judgment motions in post-conviction proceedings.
United States v. Peck (Dunn), 139 F.4th 1158 (10th Cir. 2025)
The Tenth Circuit held that the government may not obtain criminal forfeiture of property when a third party holds a superior ownership interest under state law. Applying Utah property law, the court concluded that Dunn’s ownership interest took priority over the government’s forfeiture claim, requiring vacatur of the forfeiture order. The decision limits the reach of federal forfeiture where it conflicts with preexisting property rights.
United States v. Rubio-Sepulveda, 781 F. App’x 769 (10th Cir. 2019)
The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded for resentencing after holding that the district court clearly erred in applying a four-level “organizer or leader” enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). The court held that the evidence did not establish sufficient authority or control over others. The decision reinforces that sentencing enhancements must be supported by specific evidence and that defendants are entitled to resentencing when guideline ranges are improperly calculated.
United States v. Adams, 588 F. App’x 811 (10th Cir. 2014)
The Tenth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by denying Adams’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion without an evidentiary hearing on multiple ineffective assistance of counsel claims, including an alleged actual conflict of interest and plea-related deficiencies. The court concluded that Adams had presented factual allegations which, if true, could entitle him to relief, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing and further factual development.
United States v. Egbert, 562 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2009)
This civil-rights conspiracy case arose from allegations of racially motivated assaults in Salt Lake City involving members of the National Alliance. The Tenth Circuit affirmed the convictions but reversed in part the sentences, holding that the district court clearly erred in applying sentencing enhancements unsupported by the record. In particular, the court found insufficient evidence to support the “serious bodily injury” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court vacated the affected portion of the sentences and remanded for resentencing without the improper enhancement.
To whom it may concern. I have been using BROWN BRADSHAW MOFFAT and Ann Marie Taliaferro for the past year. I have found them to be very efficient and quick to respond to my questions and specific needs and they are great communicating in court with judges and prosecutors and are always thinking about their clients and especially thinking OUT OF THE BOX, I highly recommend using this firm right on the money.
