Landry v. State
293 P.3d 1092
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Landry appeals postconviction relief dismissal in Utah Court of Appeals.
- Convicted of first-degree aggravated arson for setting his Provo apartment fire.
- Trial evidence relied on state arson experts; defense did not present an arson expert, and counsel did not consult an expert.
- Landry asserted due process violations, ineffective assistance claims against trial and appellate counsel, and insufficient evidence.
- The district court dismissed all but the appellate-counsel claim as procedurally barred; remanded on appellate-counsel claim; others upheld as barred or denied.
- On appeal, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on appellate-counsel ineffectiveness; remaining claims affirmed as procedurally barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim proceeding | Landry pleading shows trial-counsel deficiencies were prejudicial | State contends claims precluded; no state-law prejudice shown | Remanded for evidentiary hearing on appellate-counsel ineffectiveness |
| Procedural bar on remaining claims | Claims not properly barred on the pleadings | State asserts preclusion applies | Affirmed dismissal of remaining claims as procedurally barred |
| Due process and investigation methods claims | Investigators used discredited methods; potentially exculpatory evidence | Claims procedurally barred | Procedurally barred; not considered on merits |
| Sufficiency of the evidence on appeal | Appeal sufficiency claim still viable | Abandoned on appeal; merits not considered | Dismissed as abandoned; no review on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Moench v. State, 57 P.3d 1116 (Utah 2002) (ineffective assistance standard; pleading requirements to state a claim)
- Dugas v. Coplan, 428 F.3d 317 (1st Cir. 2005) (counsel's failure to pursue non-arson defense can be deficient)
- Houskeeper v. State, 2008 UT 78, 197 P.3d 636 (Utah) (counsel's failure to present adequate defense can be ineffective)
- Litherland v. State, 2000 UT 76, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah) (deficient performance standard; strategic decisions insufficient)
- Templin v. State, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah 1990) (duty to investigate underlying facts and witnesses)
- Dees v. Caspiri, 904 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1990) (duty to investigate forensic evidence and cross-examine)