nondeferential standard in Utah

2015See State v. Brake, 2004 UT 95, ¶ 15 , 103 P.3d 699 (adopting a nondeferential standard of review for search and seizure cases); Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm'n, 2007 UT 4 , ¶ 15 n. 1, 153 P.3d 179 .

2015See State v. Brake, 2004 UT 95, ¶ 15 , 103 P.3d 699 (adopting a nondeferential standard of review for search and seizure cases); Salt Lake City Corp. v. Labor Comm'n, 2007 UT 4 , ¶ 15 n. 1, 153 P.3d 179 .

2022Our Supreme Court has granted certiorari to review our holding in that case, perhaps to consider the concurring opinion’s noteworthy observations, but pending an opinion from the Court on that issue, we remain bound by precedent and apply a nondeferential standard of review in evaluating both the trial court’s deficient performance and prejudice analyses. 20200561-CA 20 2022 UT App 38 State v. Salazar elements of the crime charged.”) (emphasis added) (quotation otherwise simplified). ¶33 Salazar first asserts that “the district court erred in admitting Shannon’s testimony and in declining to s

2022Corp., 2000 UT 69, ¶ 13 , 9 P.3d 762 ). 20 Id. 6 Cite as: 2022 UT 39 Opinion of the Court review.‖21 So we review the court of appeals‘ decisions to apply a nondeferential standard of review and to reverse the juvenile court‘s neglect determination for correctness. ¶19 Affirming the juvenile court‘s decision on an alternative ground apparent from the record is a matter of discretion.22 Thus, here, ―whether the court of appeals properly refused‖ to affirm the district court‘s neglect determination on the alternate ground of abuse ―is a matter that we review for an abuse of discretion.‖23 Analys

2022Corp., 2000 UT 69, ¶ 13 , 9 P.3d 762 ). 20 Id. 6 Cite as: 2022 UT 39 Opinion of the Court review.‖21 So we review the court of appeals‘ decisions to apply a nondeferential standard of review and to reverse the juvenile court‘s neglect determination for correctness. ¶19 Affirming the juvenile court‘s decision on an alternative ground apparent from the record is a matter of discretion.22 Thus, here, ―whether the court of appeals properly refused‖ to affirm the district court‘s neglect determination on the alternate ground of abuse ―is a matter that we review for an abuse of discretion.‖23 Analys

2022Corp., 2000 UT 69, ¶ 13 , 9 P.3d 762 ). 20 Id. 6 Cite as: 2022 UT 39 Opinion of the Court review.‖21 So we review the court of appeals‘ decisions to apply a nondeferential standard of review and to reverse the juvenile court‘s neglect determination for correctness. ¶19 Affirming the juvenile court‘s decision on an alternative ground apparent from the record is a matter of discretion.22 Thus, here, ―whether the court of appeals properly refused‖ to affirm the district court‘s neglect determination on the alternate ground of abuse ―is a matter that we review for an abuse of discretion.‖23 Analys

2021And applying that standard of review, I fully concur in the well-reasoned analysis of the lead opinion. 20190599-CA 30 2021 UT App 74 State v. Torres-Orellana ¶47 But in this case, my vote might well have been different had we applied a more deferential standard of review, as we often do in cases where the same trial judge who presided over a trial made a decision on a motion for new trial.

2021Indeed, in my view, the court’s analysis in Menzies was rather cursory, containing no examination of the individual components of the Strickland test, and concluding simply that ineffective assistance claims “are regularly decided based on the record” and that appellate courts therefore “do not 20190599-CA 32 2021 UT App 74 State v. Torres-Orellana defer to the district court’s ultimate legal decision.” See Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 . ¶50 To be clear, I have no issue with application of a nondeferential standard of review with regard to a trial court’s decision on the first Strickland prong: d

2021Indeed, in my view, the court’s analysis in Menzies was rather cursory, containing no examination of the individual components of the Strickland test, and concluding simply that ineffective assistance claims “are regularly decided based on the record” and that appellate courts therefore “do not 20190599-CA 32 2021 UT App 74 State v. Torres-Orellana defer to the district court’s ultimate legal decision.” See Menzies, 2006 UT 81, ¶ 58 . ¶50 To be clear, I have no issue with application of a nondeferential standard of review with regard to a trial court’s decision on the first Strickland prong: d

2015ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Absent an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth: Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-28 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Strieff, 2015 UT 2, ¶¶ 15-19 , 357 P.3d 532 , Mr. Anderson argues that the sheriff's deputies violated, his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle without sufficient justification. | He further contends that the warrant and

2015ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Absent an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth: Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-28 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Strieff, 2015 UT 2, ¶¶ 15-19 , 357 P.3d 532 , Mr. Anderson argues that the sheriff's deputies violated, his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle without sufficient justification. | He further contends that the warrant and

2015ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Absent an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth: Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-28 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Strieff, 2015 UT 2, ¶¶ 15-19 , 357 P.3d 532 , Mr. Anderson argues that the sheriff's deputies violated, his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle without sufficient justification. | He further contends that the warrant and

2015ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Absent an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth: Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-28 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Strieff, 2015 UT 2, ¶¶ 15-19 , 357 P.3d 532 , Mr. Anderson argues that the sheriff's deputies violated, his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle without sufficient justification. | He further contends that the warrant and

2015ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Absent an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth: Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-28 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Strieff, 2015 UT 2, ¶¶ 15-19 , 357 P.3d 532 , Mr. Anderson argues that the sheriff's deputies violated, his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle without sufficient justification. | He further contends that the warrant and

2015ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Absent an exception to the exclusionary rule, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth: Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures should be excluded, Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 , 131 S.Ct. 2419, 2426-28 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 , 81 S.Ct. 1684 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); State v. Strieff, 2015 UT 2, ¶¶ 15-19 , 357 P.3d 532 , Mr. Anderson argues that the sheriff's deputies violated, his Fourth Amendment rights when they seized his vehicle without sufficient justification. | He further contends that the warrant and

2013Comm’n, 939 P.2d 177, 182 (Utah 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 89 Id. at 181 . 90 H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 Cite as: 2013 UT 38 Opinion of the Court of the accident—including the outside force to which [Mr.] Murray reacted.”91 The court recognized that the standard from our decision in Allen v. Industrial Commission92 required Mr. Murray to demonstrate an “unusual or extraordinary exertion.”93 But it concluded that there was nothing unusual about the exertion required to withstand an unexpected f

2013Comm’n, 939 P.2d 177, 182 (Utah 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 89 Id. at 181 . 90 H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 Cite as: 2013 UT 38 Opinion of the Court of the accident—including the outside force to which [Mr.] Murray reacted.”91 The court recognized that the standard from our decision in Allen v. Industrial Commission92 required Mr. Murray to demonstrate an “unusual or extraordinary exertion.”93 But it concluded that there was nothing unusual about the exertion required to withstand an unexpected f

2013Comm’n, 939 P.2d 177, 182 (Utah 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). 89 Id. at 181 . 90 H.U.F. v. W.P.W., 2009 UT 10, ¶ 44 , 203 P.3d 943 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). 20 Cite as: 2013 UT 38 Opinion of the Court of the accident—including the outside force to which [Mr.] Murray reacted.”91 The court recognized that the standard from our decision in Allen v. Industrial Commission92 required Mr. Murray to demonstrate an “unusual or extraordinary exertion.”93 But it concluded that there was nothing unusual about the exertion required to withstand an unexpected f