ineffective assistance of counsel claim in Utah

2026And the Supreme Court stated in Strickland that “[i]f it is easier to dispose of an ineffectiveness claim on the ground of lack of sufficient prejudice . . . that course should be followed.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 . 9 ¶28 For purposes of this case, we assume without deciding that the district court correctly concluded both that Johnson’s trial counsel rendered deficient performance by proposing an erroneous jury instruction and that Johnson’s appellate counsel rendered deficient performance on appeal by failing to raise the issue under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to pr

2025Logue challenges both conclusions. ¶21 “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim under the PCRA,” Logue “must meet his burden of proof on the two elements of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).” Jones v. State, 2020 UT App 125, ¶ 34 , 473 P.3d 1190 .

2021See J.A.L., 2011 UT 27, ¶ 20 (“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact.”); State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 , 185-86 (Utah 1990) (“There is no reason . . . to depart from the standard of review set out in Strickland simply because the appeal was preceded by a motion for new trial.”).

2015P. 23B(a) ; accord Johnston, 2000 UT App 290 , ¶¶ 12-13 & n. 1, 13 P.3d 175 . 29 See Christensen, 2013 UT App 163 , ¶ 4, 305 P.3d 222 ("An appellant must present this court with the evidence he intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 30 State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 , 186 (Utah 1990) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 31 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 32 Id. at 187 (internal quotation marks omitted). 33 Id. 34 Mr. Maughan confessed to

2008“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.’ ” State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 11 Next, McClellan argues that the trial court committed plain error, and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, by letting an individual with a conflict of interest sit on the jury.

2007"When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim 'is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.'" State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 *801 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). 13 Finally, Defendant argues that, based on his foregoing arguments, the trial court imposed an unconstitutional sentence, which this court should reverse under rule 22 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, see Utah R.Crim.

2025ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 Bell argues that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict. 1 “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 .

2025ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 Bell argues that Counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to move for a directed verdict. 1 “An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 .

2025“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [a defendant’s] claims under either prong.” Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 31 , 342 P.3d 182 .

2025“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [a defendant’s] claims under either prong.” Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 31 , 342 P.3d 182 .

2020Because an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “necessarily requires the court to look at the substantive issue the defendant argues his counsel should have raised, and whether the substantive issue had any merit,” we look at the substantive issue only “through the lens of counsel’s performance.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 22 , 416 P.3d 443 . 20180722-CA 20 2020 UT App 125 Jones v. State 4.

2020Because an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “necessarily requires the court to look at the substantive issue the defendant argues his counsel should have raised, and whether the substantive issue had any merit,” we look at the substantive issue only “through the lens of counsel’s performance.” State v. Johnson, 2017 UT 76, ¶ 22 , 416 P.3d 443 . 20180722-CA 20 2020 UT App 125 Jones v. State 4.

2026And “[w]hile such a claim necessarily requires the court to look at the substantive issue the defendant argues his [or her] counsel should have raised, and whether the substantive issue had any merit, the substantive issue is only viewed through the lens of counsel’s performance.” Id.; see also Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 32 , 267 P.3d 232 (“The mere allegation of ineffective assistance is not enough alone to revive the substantive claim.”). ¶23 Indeed, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim has its own elements, and these are separate from the merits of the underlying issue, whate

2026And “[w]hile such a claim necessarily requires the court to look at the substantive issue the defendant argues his [or her] counsel should have raised, and whether the substantive issue had any merit, the substantive issue is only viewed through the lens of counsel’s performance.” Id.; see also Archuleta v. Galetka, 2011 UT 73, ¶ 32 , 267 P.3d 232 (“The mere allegation of ineffective assistance is not enough alone to revive the substantive claim.”). ¶23 Indeed, an ineffective assistance of counsel claim has its own elements, and these are separate from the merits of the underlying issue, whate

2018"An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that "the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fair trial." "We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when 'the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.' " State v. Lomu , 2014 UT App 42 , ¶ 7, 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn , 850 P.2d 1201 , 1229 (Utah

2017“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25, ¶ 6 , 89 P.3d 162 . ¶33 Lastly, Defendant contends that “the cumulative effect of the several errors committed in the trial court deprived [him] of his right to a fail) trial,” “We will reverse a conviction under this doctrine when ‘the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence ... that a fair trial was had.’ ” State v. Lomu, 2014 UT App. 42, ¶ 7 , 321 P.3d 235 (omission in original) (quoting State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1229 (Utah 19

2023To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Eddington must show both that Counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See 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 .

2023To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Eddington must show both that Counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” and that this deficient performance “prejudiced the defense” such that “there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” See 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 .

2024See id. (“[I]t is unnecessary to grant deference to the district court in the minority of cases where an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is first raised before that court.”).

2024In Menzies, we explained that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim “presents a mixed question of law and fact.” 2006 UT 81, ¶ 56 (citing Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 698 (1984)).

2026Importantly, the third and fourth elements require the defendant to “present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Mason, 2024 UT App 171, ¶ 63 , 562 P.3d 1158 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 570 P.3d 658 (Utah 2025). “[I]f the defendant could not meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel, even if his [or her] new factual allegations were true, there is no reason to remand the case, and we should deny the motion.” State v. Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 20 ,

2026Importantly, the third and fourth elements require the defendant to “present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Mason, 2024 UT App 171, ¶ 63 , 562 P.3d 1158 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 570 P.3d 658 (Utah 2025). “[I]f the defendant could not meet the test for ineffective assistance of counsel, even if his [or her] new factual allegations were true, there is no reason to remand the case, and we should deny the motion.” State v. Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 20 ,

2019See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (holding that a defendant must prove both counsel's deficient performance and resulting prejudice to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also State v. Hards , 2015 UT App 42 , ¶ 18, 345 P.3d 769 ("Because both deficient performance and resulting prejudice are requisite elements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a failure to prove either element defeats the claim.").

2019See Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 , 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (holding that a defendant must prove both counsel's deficient performance and resulting prejudice to succeed on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also State v. Hards , 2015 UT App 42 , ¶ 18, 345 P.3d 769 ("Because both deficient performance and resulting prejudice are requisite elements of an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a failure to prove either element defeats the claim.").

2008“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.’ ” State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 11 Next, McClellan argues that the trial court committed plain error, and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, by letting an individual with a conflict of interest sit on the jury.

2008“When an ineffective assistance of counsel claim ‘is raised for the first time on appeal without a prior evidentiary hearing, it presents a question of law.’ ” State v. Holbert, 2002 UT App 426, ¶ 26 , 61 P.3d 291 (quoting State v. Bryant, 965 P.2d 539, 542 (Utah Ct.App.1998)). ¶ 11 Next, McClellan argues that the trial court committed plain error, and that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, by letting an individual with a conflict of interest sit on the jury.

2022Specifically, we review the district court’s determinations on “both the performance and prejudice components of [Strickland’s] ineffectiveness inquiry” 3 for correctness as “mixed questions of law and fact.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 ; see also State v. J.A.L., 2011 UT 27, ¶ 20 , 262 P.3d 1 (“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact.

2022Specifically, we review the district court’s determinations on “both the performance and prejudice components of [Strickland’s] ineffectiveness inquiry” 3 for correctness as “mixed questions of law and fact.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 698 ; see also State v. J.A.L., 2011 UT 27, ¶ 20 , 262 P.3d 1 (“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a mixed question of law and fact.

2012Bair also argues that the exceptional circumstances exception to preservation applies, see generally State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11 , 10 P.3d 346 (recognizing the exceptional circumstances exception to the preservation rule), and that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve this issue, see State v. Verde, 770 P.2d 116, 118 (Utah 1989) (noting that an ineffective assistance of counsel claim is a means "to avoid the effect of ... [trial] counsel's failure to preserve the [argument]").

2012Compare State v. Cruz, 2005 UT 45, ¶ 18 , 122 P.3d 543 (declining to decide whether plain error review applies to claims of structural error in jury instructions, but noting that under federal law an appellant claiming constitutional error "who did not object at trial may only argue plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal and thus must prove prejudice"), and State v. Malaga, 2006 UT App 103, ¶ 11 , 132 P.3d 703 (stating in context of a challenge to jury instructions that under the ineffective assistance of counsel exception to preservation, defendant has the burden of demons

2021The court perceived the following logical dilemma: Citing this court‘s interpretation of rule 23B in State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76 , 12 P.3d 92 , it concluded that ―appellate attorneys have a duty to investigate potential ineffective assistance claims that are based on facts outside the record.‖ McCloud, 2019 UT App 35, ¶ 41 (citing Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 16 ). ―And if an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been raised in a rule 23B motion, the general rule is that it will be barred on post-conviction.‖ Id.

2021The court perceived the following logical dilemma: Citing this court‘s interpretation of rule 23B in State v. Litherland, 2000 UT 76 , 12 P.3d 92 , it concluded that ―appellate attorneys have a duty to investigate potential ineffective assistance claims that are based on facts outside the record.‖ McCloud, 2019 UT App 35, ¶ 41 (citing Litherland, 2000 UT 76, ¶ 16 ). ―And if an ineffective assistance of counsel claim could have been raised in a rule 23B motion, the general rule is that it will be barred on post-conviction.‖ Id.

2025Additionally, juvenile “courts are in the best position to evaluate the credibility of witnesses,” and thus, “appellate courts defer to juvenile courts on matters of credibility.” In re K.F., 2009 UT 4, ¶ 52 , 201 P.3d 985 . ¶15 “To prevail on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, Mother must show that (1) ‘counsel’s performance was deficient’ and (2) this ‘deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 19 , 473 P.3d 184 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)).

2024“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” In re C.M.R., 2020 UT App 114, ¶ 11 , 473 P.3d 184 (cleaned up).

2026And if a claim is infirm under one of the prongs, then “the claim fails and the court need not address the other.” State v. Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 12 , 355 P.3d 1031 . ¶67 To establish deficient performance, Gaines must show that Counsel’s “representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 26 (cleaned up).

2024“In a situation where the trial court has held a Rule 23B hearing and made specific findings relevant to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we defer to the trial court’s findings of fact.” State v. Huggins, 920 P.2d 1195, 1198 (Utah Ct. App. 1996); accord Nelson, 2015 UT 62, ¶ 11 .

2022“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16 , 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up).

2022“An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law.” State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16 , 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up).

2026“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [an appellant’s] claims under either prong.” See State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 657 (cleaned up). 20230735-CA, 20230760-CA, 20240282-CA 13 2026 UT App 30 State v. Mancia ¶35 To establish deficient performance, a defendant “must demonstrate counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

2026“Because failure to establish either prong of the test is fatal to an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we are free to address [an appellant’s] claims under either prong.” See State v. Popp, 2019 UT App 173, ¶ 25 , 453 P.3d 657 (cleaned up). 20230735-CA, 20230760-CA, 20240282-CA 13 2026 UT App 30 State v. Mancia ¶35 To establish deficient performance, a defendant “must demonstrate counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.

2025To obtain a remand under this rule, “a defendant must present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, ¶ 126 , 525 P.3d 550 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 531 P.3d 730 (Utah 2023).

2025To obtain a remand under this rule, “a defendant must present the court with the evidence he [or she] intends to present on remand and explain how that evidence supports both prongs of the ineffective assistance of counsel test.” State v. Suhail, 2023 UT App 15, ¶ 126 , 525 P.3d 550 (cleaned up), cert. denied, 531 P.3d 730 (Utah 2023).