Hamblin v. State, 352 P.3d 144

Hamblin appeals a district court ruling on postconviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel.
He was convicted of rape of a child, sodomy on a child, and two counts of sexual abuse of a child; four counts, including object rape, were acquitted.
Before trial the State amended the information to remove a lightbulb-abuse allegation and to base object-rape on other objects; the victim testified at trial to two object-rape incidents.
At trial, defense impeached the victim’s credibility by highlighting inconsistencies between her initial accusations and preliminary-hearing testimony; the jury acquitted the object-rape charges.
Hamblin later filed a PCRA challenging trial and appellate counsel performance; the district court denied some claims as procedurally barred and granted summary judgment on others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Procedural bar of trial-counsel claims	Hamblin	State	Claims barred; could have been raised on appeal
Appellate-counsel ineffectiveness for not raising trial-counsel claims	Hamblin	State	Not prejudicial; no showing reversal was likely
Appellate-counsel failure to argue trial-strategy ineffectiveness	Hamblin	State	Not ineffective; strategies not shown deficient
Rule 23B remand viability	Hamblin	State	Not demonstrated; no fishing expedition remand warranted

Kell v. State, 194 P.3d 913 (Utah 2008) (Strickland standard applied to appellate counsel; prejudice required for reversal)
Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012) (PCRA burden on showing ineffective appellate counsel; intertwined with trial-counsel claims)
State v. Lucero, 328 P.3d 841 (Utah 2014) (evaluates reasonableness of appellate strategy from trial perspective)
State v. Lee, 318 P.3d 1164 (Utah App. 2014) (Rule 23B evidentiary-entry limitations; cannot remand for fishing expedition)
Taylor v. State, 270 P.3d 471 (Utah 2012) (review of PCRA claims for deference to lower court)