Attorneys for Criminal Appeals in Utah

The attorneys at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, LLP are experienced in representing clients throughout Utah in criminal direct appeals after a capital, felony or misdemeanor conviction or juvenile delinquency adjudication. We also represent the wrongfully convicted in post-conviction matters.  

Our attorneys are experienced in criminal law, criminal procedures and complex search and seizure issues. With offices conveniently located in Salt Lake City. We are ready to talk with your about a criminal appeal. Call (801) 532-5297 today for a free consultation to discuss the case.

Sampling of Successful Appeals and Post-Trial Work

Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, LLP have been very successful in post-trial proceedings and appeals, and on numerous occasions have been able to correct errors made during the initial trial and sentencing proceedings. A small sampling includes:

Motion for a New Trial (2015-Present)

State v. Truman, Fourth Judicial Court-Provo Utah

(homicide conviction; filed motion for new trial, motion recently granted)

Federal Post-Conviction Motion, Appeal, Remand (2011-2016)

United States v. Adams, United States District Court, District of Utah,

U.S. v. Adams, 588 Fed. Appx. 811 (10th Cir. 2014)

(non-violent drug conviction; client received life sentence; filed federal motion for post-conviction relief; relief granted by Tenth Circuit on appeal; life sentence vacated and defendant resentenced; defendant has been released)

Motion to Arrest Judgement (2012-2014)

State v. _________, First Judicial Court-Cache County, Utah

(conviction for felony sexual abuse of a child; filed motion to arrest judgment; motion granted; case resolved);

Federal Appeal (2008-2009)

U.S. v. Egbert, et. al, 562 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2009)

Motion for New Trial and Appeal (2005-2007)

State v. Hales, Third Judicial Court- Salt Lake County, Utah,

State v. Hales, 2007 UT 14

(homicide conviction-“shaken-baby” case; filed motion for new trial; relief on appeal; case dismissed)

Motion for New Trial (2002-2003)

West Valley City v. _____, Third Judicial Court-West Valley, Utah

(conviction for assault; filed motion for new trial; motion granted, case resolved)

State v. Nelson-Waggoner

6 P.3d 1120 (Utah 2000)

This case became the seminal and most often cited case in Utah law involving what "prior bad acts" evidence of a defendant may be used in a criminal trial.

Gutierrez v. Medley

972 P.2d 913 (Utah 1998)

The State sought to use Utah's Subpoena Powers Act to coerce testimony and cooperation from potential witnesses to a murder committed in their home. This case first defined the limitations of the Subpoena Powers Act and limited the State's power to use the act.

State v. Herrera

993 P.2d 854 (Utah 1999), see also 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995)

The defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. This case became the seminal Utah case challenging the ultimate elimination of a true insanity defense in Utah.

State v. Tuttle

780 P.2d 1203 (Utah 1989); Tuttle v. State of Utah, 57 F.3d 879 (10th Cir. 1995)

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder. The case was appealed, and the appellate court reversed. Of importance, the Tuttle cases made state law regarding the use and unreliability of hypnotically enhanced testimony at trial.

State v. Stettina

868 P.2d 108 (Utah App. 1994)

The defendant was convicted of kidnapping and forcible sexual abuse. This case importantly delineated the Utah rule that consecutive sentences may not be aggregated to exceed 30 years and the exceptions to it.

State v. Vigil

842 P.2d 843 (Utah 1992)

The defendant was charged with various counts of murder and attempted murder. This case ultimately redefined what is required under Utah law to convict a person for "attempted" murder. As the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, it found there could be no crime of attempted "depraved indifference" murder.

State v. Mitchell

779 P.2d 1116 (Utah 1989); State v. Mitchell, 824 P.2d 469 (Utah App. 1991)

The defendant was convicted of first-degree murder following a jury trial. The case was appealed and reversed, resulting in a new trial. On retrial, the defendant was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter. The case was appealed again, and state law was made regarding the use and unreliability of post-hypnotic testimony at trial. Ultimately, the Utah Supreme Court agreed that hypnotically enhanced testimony is inherently unreliable and inadmissible as evidence and that the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony required reversal.

State v. Hales

In an almost 20-year-old case, an innocent man was convicted of the murder of a child who died from injuries purportedly sustained from "shaken baby syndrome." He was sentenced to a term of five years to life in prison. Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat became involved after the verdict and after the defendant was already serving a prison sentence. After discovering new evidence that showed that the defendant could not have committed the offense, a motion for new trial was filed. Based upon this new evidence, and prior to the full appeal being heard, Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat secured the defendant's release from prison. The Utah Supreme Court thereafter reversed the conviction. Based upon the newly discovered evidence establishing the defendant's innocence, the State dismissed the case without retrial.

State v. Low

Third District Court-Summit County, Case No. 031500082

The defendant was charged with murder in an apartment in Park City, Utah. Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat presented the defendant's self-defense case to the jury. The first jury could not reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a hung jury. The case was retried, and the second jury also did not find the defendant guilty of murder, but guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter.

Additional Resources

Criminal Appeals in Utah - Visit the website of the Utah Courts to learn more about appellate briefs and criminal appeals in Utah after a trial or illegal sentence. Learn more about the Justice Court Appeals to the District Courts, District or Juvenile Court Appeals to the Court of Appeals or the Utah Supreme Court. Find the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure (also called the URAP or Appellate Rules).

Utah Courts - Court of Appeals - Visit the website for the Utah Court of Appeals to learn more about this week’s decisions and opinions, streaming audio of oral arguments, and the appellate docket search. Also find information about the judges for the Court of Appeals.

Criminal Appeals in Utah - Visit the office of the Utah Attorney General to learn more about criminal appeals to defend convictions and foster justice for the People of Utah. The Criminal Appeal Division’s attorneys represent Utah in all appeals statewide from capital and felony convictions and juvenile delinquency adjudications.

Finding a Lawyer for Criminal Appeals in Utah

Rule 38 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that “[a] case appealed from a justice court shall be heard in a district courthouse located in the same county as the justice court from which the case is appealed.” Utah R. Crim. P. 38(a).

If you were wrongfully convicted in a courthouse in Salt Lake City or the surrounding areas in Utah, then contact an experienced criminal appellate attorney at Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat, LLP. Call us for a consultation to discuss the substantive law and procedural law that might apply in your case during a direct appeal.

Call (801) 532-5297 today.

Tell Us About Your Case


Use the form above to request your free, confidential case evaluation. Our office will contact you as soon as possible to arrange for you to discuss the facts of your case with an experienced criminal defense attorney in Salt Lake City, Utah.​

Note: By submitting the above form, you are requesting a free and confidential consultation with one of our attorneys to discuss the specific facts of your case. We will evaluate your unique situation and provide you with valuable information about how an attorney may be able to help you. Please do not provide any confidential or time-sensitive information using this online contact form. If your situation is urgent, please call us at (801) 532-5297. We look forward to hearing from you.​

The use of this form for communication with our personnel does not establish an attorney-client relationship.

What People Say


Mark has represented our son for over ten years. We have a difficult situation but we have never doubted that Mark, and now, Mike, care about him and our family. Their caring advice has been a lifeline for us.

Gary C.

Mike Holje was there for me and helped me get the charges dismissed. He was fantastic. I am so thankful for this firm.


Jim Bradshaw worked with me on a case and was helpful, realistic and very professional. I found him to be one of the best attorneys (and person) I have encountered.


I used Brown, Bradshaw & Moffat and would recommend them to anyone. Everyone in his or her office is kind, efficient and very responsive. You are treated respectfully and on an equal playing field.

Brown Bradshaw & Moffat, PLLC BBB Business Review