Lynch v State

Lynch appealed the dismissal of his post-conviction relief petition. The panel affirmed. It held summary judgment to State was appropriate on Lynch’s ineffective assistance claims as the claims involving the operability of the truck in question were raised in a new trial motion and thus procedurally barred here; his arguments about the condition of the paint on the truck and a possible witness who called the tip line were raised and rejected at the new trial stage and thus procedurally barred; that all trail based claims were procedurally barred as they were not raised by appellate counsel on direct appeal; that claims of ineffectiveness as to appellate counsel failed as Lynch did not present evidence that the ruck was in the same condition when examined in 2012 as it was at the time of the collision with victim, that examination would not have been an obvious issue given Lynch’s admission the disputed tow hook existed, evidence about the ability of the hood to latch would not have changed the outcome on appeal, evidence about the lack of damage to the front grille of the truck Lynch argues should have been given to the jury was in fact placed before the jury at trial, arguments about zip ties found on the truck would not resulted in success on appeal, that his arguments about another possible witness Lynch argued should have been presented to the jury was in fact introduced through cross examination and highlighted in opening statement and closing argument and this was reasonable tactics under the circumstances. It affirmed dismissal of the new evidence claim as testimony at the hearing about zip ties was contradictory, there was objective evidence that claims the zip ties were not discovered were simply untrue, the witnesses never personally took the truck for a higher speed drive and thus had no personal knowledge about whether the hood lacked down or needed to be zip ties and thus at most the testimony would have required the jury to make a credibility determination and this falls short of the standard that no reasonable jury could have convicted Lynch.State v Craft

Craft appealed his robbery and burglary convictions arguing ineffective assistance of counsel. The panel vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial. It held there was no ineffectiveness in not objecting to the eyewitness testimony here as it was sufficiently reliable under controlling Utah Supreme Court precedent to be admitted particularly as the photo array was less suggestive than the show up in the precedent and the witness here got a look at the unmasked face of the perpetrator. The panel held that there was ineffective assistance of counsel when trial counsel did ton object to testimony that the two other defendants in the robbery said Craft was at the scene because Craft’s defense was he was not at the scene, trial of the other defendants had been severed to prevent the statement form coming into evidence and the jury could have convicted on the statement alone making mistrial likely if proper objection was raised and there was no strategic basis not to move for mistrial and the outcome would likely have been different absent the statement given the not sufficiently overwhelming other evidence presented.

In the interests of K.G. and S.M. (K.M. v State)

K.M. appealed the termination of her parental rights. It affirmed holding evidence of K.M.’s drug use and failure to comply with the service plan supported termination and termination is in the best interest of the children as they are in a stable loving foster home and the foster parents want to adopt them.