conflict between waiver in Utah

2020But Thompson has not adequately challenged the district court’s finding that there was a factual basis to support his plea. ¶24 In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that “pleas coupled with claims of innocence should not be accepted unless there is a factual basis for the plea and until the judge taking the plea has inquired into and sought to resolve the conflict between the waiver of trial and 20190509-CA 8 2020 UT App 148 State v. Thompson the claim of innocence.” Id. at 38 n.10 (quotation simplified); see also State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 67

2020This approach furthers the goal of “insuring that guilty pleas are a product of free and intelligent choice.” Alford, 400 U.S. at 38 n.10.

2020But Thompson has not adequately challenged the district court’s finding that there was a factual basis to support his plea. ¶24 In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that “pleas coupled with claims of innocence should not be accepted unless there is a factual basis for the plea and until the judge taking the plea has inquired into and sought to resolve the conflict between the waiver of trial and 20190509-CA 8 2020 UT App 148 State v. Thompson the claim of innocence.” Id. at 38 n.10 (quotation simplified); see also State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 67

2020But Thompson has not adequately challenged the district court’s finding that there was a factual basis to support his plea. ¶24 In North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court suggested that “pleas coupled with claims of innocence should not be accepted unless there is a factual basis for the plea and until the judge taking the plea has inquired into and sought to resolve the conflict between the waiver of trial and 20190509-CA 8 2020 UT App 148 State v. Thompson the claim of innocence.” Id. at 38 n.10 (quotation simplified); see also State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 67

2020Although (continued…) 20190542-CA 6 2020 UT App 99 Pon v. Brewer ¶12 Here, the more specific ten-day deadline set forth in the Act controls, not the more general fourteen-day deadline set (…continued) the conflict between the rule and the statute may present legitimate constitutional questions, as noted above, the constitutionality of the Act is not properly before us in this case.

2017To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance was prejudicial — i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 92 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶23 Third, Crespo contends the “[district] court plainly erred in failing to properly inquire into the nature of the conflict between defense counsel and [Crespo].” “To demonstrate plain error;- a defendant mus

2017To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance was prejudicial — i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 92 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶23 Third, Crespo contends the “[district] court plainly erred in failing to properly inquire into the nature of the conflict between defense counsel and [Crespo].” “To demonstrate plain error;- a defendant mus

2017To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance was prejudicial — i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 92 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶23 Third, Crespo contends the “[district] court plainly erred in failing to properly inquire into the nature of the conflict between defense counsel and [Crespo].” “To demonstrate plain error;- a defendant mus

2017To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance was prejudicial — i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 92 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶23 Third, Crespo contends the “[district] court plainly erred in failing to properly inquire into the nature of the conflict between defense counsel and [Crespo].” “To demonstrate plain error;- a defendant mus

2017To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance was prejudicial — i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 92 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶23 Third, Crespo contends the “[district] court plainly erred in failing to properly inquire into the nature of the conflict between defense counsel and [Crespo].” “To demonstrate plain error;- a defendant mus

2017To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate “that counsel’s performance was deficient” and that the “deficient performance was prejudicial — i.e., that it affected the outcome of the case.” See State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 19 , 12 P.3d 92 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984)). ¶23 Third, Crespo contends the “[district] court plainly erred in failing to properly inquire into the nature of the conflict between defense counsel and [Crespo].” “To demonstrate plain error;- a defendant mus