State v Apodaca

Apodaca appealed his aggravated kidnaping, aggravated robbery and obstruction of justice convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no error in the district court’s finding that Apodaca’s statements to police were voluntary and thus could be used for impeachment as Apodaca did not marshal the evidence in support of the district court’s ruling and the panel declined to disturb the district court’s implicit rejection of Apodaca’ testimony and a promise to let the prosecutor know about Apodaca’s cooperation and a statement that cooperation was in Apodaca’s best interest were not coercive, Apodaca’s Miranda rights were violated but this is insufficient on its own to find coercion, the false friend argument was unpersuasive given Apodaca’s savvy negation , any misrepresentations did not overcome Apodaca’s will, the four hour interrogation was not coercive nor was the refusal to allow Apodaca to call his girlfriend, the officers did no condition Apodaca’s access to his methadone medication on incriminating himself or others, Apodaca had a sophisticated understanding of his rights and a desire not to go to jail does not make a person susceptible to police manipulation . It rejected Apodaca’s ineffective assistance claim as performance was deficient as the jury instruction on the robbery mens rea was wrong, but, there was no prejudice given evidence that Apodaca arranged tor an armed accomplice to come with him and a third party to rob a drug dealer, Apodaca drove off with the victim in the car without being told and kept eh door lacked to keep victim in the car and Apodaca also failed to prove how under his alternative theory he acted knowingly but not intentionally.

Carmona v Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America

Carmona appealed the grant of Company’s motion to dismiss. The panel affirmed holding Carmona was not an intended beneficiary of the contract between company and the landowner in Carmona’s personal injury case as the provision in question merely indemnifies landowner for certain small claims and makes no provision to directly pay injured persons.

Hardy v Montgomery

Hardy appealed the judgment for Montgomery in this breach of lease case. The panel affirmed in part, vacated n part and remanded for further proceedings. It affirmed the finding that Hardy anticipatorily breached an option to purchase agreement by telling Montgomery he did not want to sell the house and later written statements he did not want to finance the dale and Montgomery was not barred form curing any breach for late payment of rent and late fees. It held the purchase agreement was integrated into the signed lease and thus part of the bargain between the parties. It vacated the portion of the judgment that hardy waived his claim to the late rent as the district court failed to mention let alone analyze the non-waiver provision in the lease and the late fee and liquidated damages calculation were also remanded in the event the waiver finding was reversed by the district court. It affirmed the district court’s ruling that neither party be awarded attorney fees and declined to award fees to either party on appeal.

State v. Tirado

Tirado appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed holding the officers involved substantially complied with Lehi’s impound search policy as photographing the contents of the car is a essentially equivalent to listing all items in the car, a backpack searched and returned to Tirado did not affect the inventory search, and the officer’s opening a transparent prescription bottle was in compliance with the inventory policy and any subjective motive to find evidence of  a crime did not negate the legitimate basis to impound the car for lack of a registration.

Garcia v State

Garcia appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction relief portion. The panel affirmed. It held is ineffective assistance claim based on a statue of limitations defense was meritless as the limitation period never started and was repealed before it could apply in his case. It held three other ineffective assistance claims were procedurally barred as Garcia raised those issues at sentencing then failed to apple. It finally held that his denial of appeal rights could not be raised in post-conviction proceedings.

Bergmann v Bergmann

Husband appealed the denial of his motion to alter or amend the parties divorce decree. The panel affirmed. It held that husband failed to prove his mutual mistake claim given evidence that the parties acted as though they were required by a premarital agreement to equally cover living expenses, kept a detailed ledger to track living expense, husband admitted he owed wife money from failure to cover his half and a later agreement assigning house equity to wife was based on the understanding that husband owed wife money for expenses. It held the fact the later agreement did to specify the amount owed was not mutual mistake as the trial court found the amount of the assigned equity to be a compromise amount which husband did not challenge on appeal and the parties never revisited the amount of the debt even though the agreement allowed them to do so. The panel finally warded wife attorney fees incurred on appeal and remanded for calculation.