ineffective assistance claim in Utah

2026ANALYSIS ¶33 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, James must make a two-part showing: (1) that Counsel’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [C]ounsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 .

2026“Failure to establish either prong is fatal to a defendant’s ineffective assistance claim.” State v. King, 2010 UT App 396, ¶ 30 , 248 P.3d 984 . ¶29 Under the first prong, defense counsel’s performance is deficient if it falls “below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 688 .

2016See State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461, 468 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (recognizing that “authority from this court supports the notion that an ineffective assistance claim succeeds only when no conceivable legitimate tactic or strategy can be surmised from counsel’s actions”). 7 .

2016See State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461, 468 (Utah Ct.App.1993) ("[An ineffective assistance claim succeeds only when no conceivable legitimate tactic or strategy can be surmised from counsel's actions.").

2026ANALYSIS ¶33 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, James must make a two-part showing: (1) that Counsel’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [C]ounsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 .

2026ANALYSIS ¶33 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, James must make a two-part showing: (1) that Counsel’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [C]ounsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 .

2019"In ruling on an ineffective assistance claim following a Rule 23B hearing, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact, but review its legal conclusions for correctness." 2 State v. Bredehoft , 966 P.2d 285 , 289 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quotation simplified).

2014"In ruling on an ineffective assistance claim following a Rule 23B hearing, we defer to the trial court's findings of fact, but review its legal conclusions for correctness." State v. Bredehoft, 966 P.2d 285, 289 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). $21 Thompson claims that even if none of trial counsel's errors individually prejudiced his defense, the cumulative effect of these errors warrants reversal of his convictions and remand for a new trial.

2024Where a district court makes factual findings that are relevant to an ineffective assistance claim arising in a new trial motion, appellate courts will defer to those factual findings and “overturn [them] only if they are clearly erroneous.” Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 . ¶53 Menzies was our first opportunity to apply the Levin factors to ineffective assistance claims, although we did not use the terms “law-like” and “fact-like” at that time.5 See 2006 UT 81 , ¶¶ 56–57. __________________________________________________________ 5 The State cites a case that predates Menzies, State v. Templin, whe

2015To satisfy the deficient-performance element of the ineffective-assistance test, “a defendant must identify the acts or omissions which, under the circumstances, show that counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and overcome the reviewing court’s presumption that “the challenged action might be considered sound trial strategy.” State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182, 186 (Utah 1990) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

2023Because “failure to satisfy either part of the ineffective assistance test is fatal to a defendant’s claim,” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 48 , 453 P.3d 657 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 485 P.3d 943 (Utah 2021), we need not “address both components of the inquiry if we determine that [Stephanie] has made an insufficient showing on one,” see Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 41 , 267 P.3d 232 (quotation simplified). ¶91 The first part of the test requires Stephanie to show that Trial Counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶

2023Because “failure to satisfy either part of the ineffective assistance test is fatal to a defendant’s claim,” State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 48 , 453 P.3d 657 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 485 P.3d 943 (Utah 2021), we need not “address both components of the inquiry if we determine that [Stephanie] has made an insufficient showing on one,” see Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 41 , 267 P.3d 232 (quotation simplified). ¶91 The first part of the test requires Stephanie to show that Trial Counsel’s performance “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶

2024Where a district court makes factual findings that are relevant to an ineffective assistance claim arising in a new trial motion, appellate courts will defer to those factual findings and “overturn [them] only if they are clearly erroneous.” Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 . ¶53 Menzies was our first opportunity to apply the Levin factors to ineffective assistance claims, although we did not use the terms “law-like” and “fact-like” at that time.5 See 2006 UT 81 , ¶¶ 56–57. __________________________________________________________ 5 The State cites a case that predates Menzies, State v. Templin, whe

2024Where a district court makes factual findings that are relevant to an ineffective assistance claim arising in a new trial motion, appellate courts will defer to those factual findings and “overturn [them] only if they are clearly erroneous.” Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 . ¶53 Menzies was our first opportunity to apply the Levin factors to ineffective assistance claims, although we did not use the terms “law-like” and “fact-like” at that time.5 See 2006 UT 81 , ¶¶ 56–57. __________________________________________________________ 5 The State cites a case that predates Menzies, State v. Templin, whe

2026ANALYSIS ¶33 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, James must make a two-part showing: (1) that Counsel’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [C]ounsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 .

2026ANALYSIS ¶33 To succeed on an ineffective assistance claim, James must make a two-part showing: (1) that Counsel’s performance was deficient in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and (2) that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for [C]ounsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687–88, 694 (1984); accord State v. Scott, 2020 UT 13, ¶ 28 , 462 P.3d 350 ; State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 24 , 469 P.3d 871 .

1998When a defendant raises an ineffective assistance claim for the first time on appeal, the claim will be reviewed only “if the ... record is adequate to permit decision of the issue.” State v. Humphries, 818 P.2d 1027, 1029 (Utah 1991).

1998When a defendant raises an ineffective assistance claim for the first time on appeal, the claim will be reviewed only "if the ... record is adequate to permit decision of the issue." State v. Humphries, 818 P.2d 1027, 1029 (Utah 1991).

2006See State v. Garrett, 849 P.2d 578 , 580 n. 3 (Utah Ct.App.1993) ("An additional requirement to hearing an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal is that the defendant must be represented by new counsel on appeal because it is unreasonable to expect [trial counsel] to raise the issue of his own ineffectiveness at trial on direct appeal.” (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted)). .

2006See State v. Garrett, 849 P.2d 578 , 580 n. 3 (Utah Ct.App.1993) ("An additional requirement to hearing an ineffective assistance claim on direct appeal is that the defendant must be represented by new counsel on appeal because it is unreasonable to expect [trial counsel] to raise the issue of his own ineffectiveness at trial on direct appeal." (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted)). [4] As discussed above, K.M.'s counsel conceded to the juvenile court that her admission colloquy was proper.

2021See State v. Ray, 2020 UT 12, ¶ 34 , 469 P.3d 871 (“If it appears counsel’s actions could have been intended to further a reasonable strategy, a defendant has necessarily failed to show unreasonable performance.”); see also State v. Tyler, 850 P.2d 1250, 1256 (Utah 1993) (stating that “trial (continued…) 20190123-CA 15 2021 UT App 53 State v. Godinez Juarez ¶28 In attempting to demonstrate prejudice, Godinez Juarez makes two arguments.

2014Therefore, we can only speculate as to what an expert would have testified to if called by N.A.D.'s counsel, and "proof of counsel's ineffectiveness must be a demonstrable reality, not mere speculation." See State v. Tyler, 850 P.2d 1250, 1254 (Utah 1993).

2014See Parsons, 871 P.2d at 522-23, 526 (noting that a defendant must “affirmatively prove both prongs of the Strickland test to prevail” on an ineffective assistance claim). ¶ 9 Stolfus also requests that we review his unpreserved argument that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea because the trial court’s plea colloquy did not strictly comply with rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure.

2013See, e.g., State v. Arguelles, 921 P.2d 439, 441 (Utah 1996) (“Unless [the defendant] has demonstrated that he was prejudiced by his trial counsel’s performance, we need not decide whether that performance was deficient.”); State v. Strain, 885 P.2d 810, 814 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (“[I]n cases in which it is ‘easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice,’ we will do so without addressing whether counsel’s performance was professionally unreasonable.”) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697 (1984)). ¶50 The requisite showing of prejudic

2025See Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 31 , 342 P.3d 182 (holding that appellate courts are free to dispose of an appellant’s claim “under either prong” of the ineffective assistance test). 20221105-CA 13 2025 UT App 65 State v. Greenway ¶35 “When evaluating a prejudice claim in the ineffective assistance context, we assess counterfactual scenarios,” State v. Forbush, 2024 UT App 11, ¶ 25 , 544 P.3d 1 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 550 P.3d 995 (Utah 2024), that is, “a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error,” State v. Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 36 , 424 P

2025See Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 31 , 342 P.3d 182 (holding that appellate courts are free to dispose of an appellant’s claim “under either prong” of the ineffective assistance test). 20221105-CA 13 2025 UT App 65 State v. Greenway ¶35 “When evaluating a prejudice claim in the ineffective assistance context, we assess counterfactual scenarios,” State v. Forbush, 2024 UT App 11, ¶ 25 , 544 P.3d 1 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 550 P.3d 995 (Utah 2024), that is, “a hypothetical—an alternative universe in which the trial went off without the error,” State v. Ring, 2018 UT 19, ¶ 36 , 424 P

2020When a defendant raises issues of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel, a common standard of prejudice applies “because plain error requires a showing that absent the error, there is a substantial likelihood of a more favorable outcome for defendant, and similarly, the ineffective assistance standard requires a showing that but for ineffective assistance of counsel, (continued…) 20190150-CA 12 2020 UT App 129 State v. Henfling 124 n.15 (Utah 1989); see also State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76 , ¶ 31 n.14, 12 P.3d 92 . ¶31 Fourth, Henfling contends that the trial court erred in failing

2020When a defendant raises issues of plain error and ineffective assistance of counsel, a common standard of prejudice applies “because plain error requires a showing that absent the error, there is a substantial likelihood of a more favorable outcome for defendant, and similarly, the ineffective assistance standard requires a showing that but for ineffective assistance of counsel, (continued…) 20190150-CA 12 2020 UT App 129 State v. Henfling 124 n.15 (Utah 1989); see also State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76 , ¶ 31 n.14, 12 P.3d 92 . ¶31 Fourth, Henfling contends that the trial court erred in failing

2026“When an ineffective assistance claim is raised for the first time on appeal, it presents a question of law.” State v. Rivera, 2022 UT App 44, ¶ 21 , 509 P.3d 257 . ¶23 Second, Durfee challenges the trial court’s evidentiary ruling regarding the allowable scope of the State’s cross- examination of Ex-Girlfriend.

2026“When an ineffective assistance claim is raised for the first time on appeal, it presents a question of law.” State v. Rivera, 2022 UT App 44, ¶ 21 , 509 P.3d 257 . ¶23 Second, Durfee challenges the trial court’s evidentiary ruling regarding the allowable scope of the State’s cross- examination of Ex-Girlfriend.

2024See, e.g., Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 33 (prejudice standard for preserved claims); State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 36 , 453 P.3d 657 (prejudice standard for plain error review); State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 27 , 535 P.3d 390 (prejudice standard for an ineffective assistance claim).

2024See, e.g., Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 33 (prejudice standard for preserved claims); State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 36 , 453 P.3d 657 (prejudice standard for plain error review); State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 27 , 535 P.3d 390 (prejudice standard for an ineffective assistance claim).

2021This “is a relatively high hurdle to overcome.” State v. Garcia, 2017 UT 53, ¶ 44 , 424 P.3d 171 . ¶28 If we determine that Moore has made an insufficient showing on either element of the ineffective assistance inquiry, we “need not address the other.” State v. Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 12 , 355 P.3d 1031 .

2021This “is a relatively high hurdle to overcome.” State v. Garcia, 2017 UT 53, ¶ 44 , 424 P.3d 171 . ¶28 If we determine that Moore has made an insufficient showing on either element of the ineffective assistance inquiry, we “need not address the other.” State v. Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 12 , 355 P.3d 1031 .

2015Likewise, if Officer did not violate Heywood's Miranda rights, trial counsel's decision not to move to suppress Heywood's statements to Officer "was not prejudicial and the ineffective assistance claim fails." See Snyder, 860 P.2d at 354 .

2014Before we reach Defendant's ineffective-assistance claim, " 'we must first decide whether [Dlefendant's Miranda rights were actually violated," because 'ilf they were not, trial counsel's tardiness in bringing the suppression motion was not prejudicial and the ineffective assistance claim fails'" State v. Ferry, 2007 UT App 128, ¶ 12 , 163 P.3d 647 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Snyder, 860 P.2d 351, 354 (Utah Ct.App.1993)). 121 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution "protects individuals from being compelled to give evidence against themselves." State v. Rettenberge

2026See generally Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 350 (1980).

2015Defendant must still demonstrate "that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected [her] lawyer's performance." See id. 138 The limited number of courts faced with an ineffective-assistance claim based on a sexual relationship have reached the same conclusion.

2024See, e.g., Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 33 (prejudice standard for preserved claims); State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 36 , 453 P.3d 657 (prejudice standard for plain error review); State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 27 , 535 P.3d 390 (prejudice standard for an ineffective assistance claim).

2024See, e.g., Reece, 2015 UT 45, ¶ 33 (prejudice standard for preserved claims); State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 36 , 453 P.3d 657 (prejudice standard for plain error review); State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 27 , 535 P.3d 390 (prejudice standard for an ineffective assistance claim).

2026See, e.g., State v. Curtis, 2013 UT App 287, ¶ 34 , 317 P.3d 968 (“Appellate courts may resolve an ineffective assistance claim on prejudice alone if the ineffectiveness did not prejudice the trial’s outcome.” (quotation simplified)).

2026See, e.g., State v. Curtis, 2013 UT App 287, ¶ 34 , 317 P.3d 968 (“Appellate courts may resolve an ineffective assistance claim on prejudice alone if the ineffectiveness did not prejudice the trial’s outcome.” (quotation simplified)).

2025“Proof of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be a speculative matter but must be a demonstrable reality.” Id. (quotation simplified). 20230054-CA 11 2025 UT App 23 Logue v. State ¶23 In any event, the district court dismissed this ineffective assistance claim, citing Lafferty v. State, 2007 UT 73 , 175 P.3d 530 , overruled on other grounds by McCloud v. State, 2021 UT 51 , 496 P.3d 179 , in which our Supreme Court recognized that “[r]aising an issue for the first time in a memorandum opposing summary judgment without showing good cause violates the pleading requirements for post-convicti

2025“Proof of ineffective assistance of counsel cannot be a speculative matter but must be a demonstrable reality.” Id. (quotation simplified). 20230054-CA 11 2025 UT App 23 Logue v. State ¶23 In any event, the district court dismissed this ineffective assistance claim, citing Lafferty v. State, 2007 UT 73 , 175 P.3d 530 , overruled on other grounds by McCloud v. State, 2021 UT 51 , 496 P.3d 179 , in which our Supreme Court recognized that “[r]aising an issue for the first time in a memorandum opposing summary judgment without showing good cause violates the pleading requirements for post-convicti

2024See, e.g., State v. Beames, 2022 UT App 61 , ¶ 17 n.3, 511 P.3d 1226 (considering whether the missing motion “was likely to be granted” (emphasis in original, quotation otherwise simplified)); State v. Makaya, 2020 UT App 152, ¶¶ 9, 18 , 476 P.3d 1025 (rejecting an ineffective assistance claim where it appeared that the “motion would have been denied”).

2024See, e.g., State v. Beames, 2022 UT App 61 , ¶ 17 n.3, 511 P.3d 1226 (considering whether the missing motion “was likely to be granted” (emphasis in original, quotation otherwise simplified)); State v. Makaya, 2020 UT App 152, ¶¶ 9, 18 , 476 P.3d 1025 (rejecting an ineffective assistance claim where it appeared that the “motion would have been denied”).

2024If the proffered evidence and arguments do not “meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel,” “there is no reason to remand the case.” State v. Samples, 2022 UT App 125, ¶ 57 , 521 P.3d 526 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1279 (Utah 2023); see also State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 52 , 535 P.3d 390 (explaining that “the alleged facts, if true, must establish both elements of a traditional ineffective- assistance claim” (quotation simplified)), cert. denied, 540 P.3d 78 (Utah 2023). ¶80 To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, Draper must show that Counsel perform

2024If the proffered evidence and arguments do not “meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel,” “there is no reason to remand the case.” State v. Samples, 2022 UT App 125, ¶ 57 , 521 P.3d 526 (quotation simplified), cert. denied, 525 P.3d 1279 (Utah 2023); see also State v. Miller, 2023 UT App 85, ¶ 52 , 535 P.3d 390 (explaining that “the alleged facts, if true, must establish both elements of a traditional ineffective- assistance claim” (quotation simplified)), cert. denied, 540 P.3d 78 (Utah 2023). ¶80 To prevail on an ineffective assistance claim, Draper must show that Counsel perform