In Salazar v. Utah State Prison, 852 P.2d 988 (Utah 1993), the Court held that a rule 11 violation does not necessarily constitute a constitutional violation under either the Utah Constitution or the United States Constitution. The Court noted specifically, "If this were a direct appeal from denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, . . . failure to strictly comply with rule 11 would be grounds for reversal," but that "on collateral attack of a conviction, the petitioner must show a constitutional violation to obtain relief." Further, the Court stated that "to obtain a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must show more than a violation of the prophylactic provisions of Rule 11; he or she must show that the guilty plea was in fact not knowing and voluntary."