449 P.3d 929
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Paul Hattrich was charged with multiple sex offenses against three boys; he pleaded no contest the day before trial to three counts of sodomy on a child in exchange for dismissal of the remaining counts and a concurrent sentence of 15 years to life.
- His plea was conditioned to reserve the right to appeal “any issues which have arisen or been litigated in this case.” The plea colloquy and written waiver confirmed he read and signed the plea agreement and understood the consequences.
- On direct appeal the court affirmed convictions, rejecting several challenges (including venue, joinder, notice, and preservation-based claims).
- In a post-conviction petition Hattrich argued (1) his conditional no-contest pleas were not knowing/voluntary because he misunderstood appeal limitations, (2) the State breached the plea agreement by asserting preservation/briefing defenses on appeal, (3) multiple instances of ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, and (4) requested discovery about plea negotiations.
- The district court granted the State’s summary judgment and denied post-conviction relief and discovery; Hattrich appealed and this Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of conditional no-contest plea | Hattrich says he did not understand appeal rights were subject to preservation/briefing rules, so plea was not knowing/voluntary | State says plea language was plain and did not waive procedural appellate rules; colloquy showed understanding | Plea was knowing and voluntary; no relief granted |
| Breach of plea agreement by State on appeal | State breached by arguing issues were unpreserved or inadequately briefed | State says agreement never eliminated preservation/briefing requirements, so no breach | No breach; State’s appellate arguments did not violate plea terms |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (multiple claims: failure to communicate plea offer, coercion, failure to litigate motions, suppression, warrantless arrest, venue) | Hattrich asserts counsel failed to communicate a favorable plea, coerced plea by being unprepared, and omitted meritorious pretrial motions | State argues claims are barred where previously raised on appeal, or are unsupported, speculative, or would have been futile; counsel decisions were tactical | Summary judgment for State affirmed: many claims procedurally barred; remaining claims fail Strickland (no deficient performance or no prejudice) |
| Discovery re: plea negotiations | Hattrich sought discovery into plea-offer communications for Frye claim | State opposed; district court found no good cause and Hattrich did not seek Rule 56(d) continuance | Denial of discovery not an abuse of discretion; summary judgment proceeded |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (Sup. Ct.) (duty to communicate formal plea offers and elements of prejudice analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (Sup. Ct.) (two-prong ineffective assistance test: performance and prejudice)
- Copeland v. State, 765 P.2d 1266 (Utah 1988) (state must not break promise in plea bargain; grounds to withdraw plea)
- Tillman v. Cook, 855 P.2d 211 (Utah 1993) (amendments to information require defendant to show prejudice to warrant reversal)