Lynch v. State
400 P.3d 1047
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- On Oct. 3, 2007, Patricia Rothermich was struck by a vehicle and later died; the vehicle was a white pickup later traced to Sherman Lynch. Evidence included paint transfers on the victim, zip-tie fragments, damage to the truck (hood, grille), and DNA from a female on a spoiler. Lynch was convicted of murder and obstruction of justice.
- Lynch contended at trial and in a new-trial motion that his truck could not have caused the injuries (arguments about grille, tow hook, paint, hood latch, and zip ties); trial counsel elicited and used some of that evidence at trial.
- After conviction and direct appeal (affirmed), Lynch filed a PCRA petition raising 29 claims—primarily ineffective assistance of counsel (trial and appellate) and newly discovered evidence (affidavits from private investigators Steed and Warren based on a 2012 inspection of the truck).
- The State moved for summary judgment; the postconviction court held many claims procedurally barred (previously raised at trial/new-trial/appeal) or without prejudice, denied summary judgment as to the newly discovered-evidence claim, held an evidentiary hearing, and ultimately denied the PCRA petition in full.
- Central factual disputes in the PCRA were: whether zip ties were found at the crash scene or later affixed by officers; whether the truck had a tow hook or damaged grille/hood at the relevant time; and whether Steed/Warren’s 2012 observations undermined the State’s case sufficiently to meet the PCRA standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lynch) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were Lynch’s ineffective-assistance claims barred or meritorious? | Trial counsel failed to examine truck parts, test zip ties, investigate paint, and follow witnesses; appellate counsel was ineffective for not raising those on appeal. | Many of the claims were raised/decided at trial or in the new-trial motion (procedurally barred) or lacked prejudice; appellate counsel’s omissions were not obvious or outcome-determinative. | Court affirmed summary judgment for the State: most claims procedurally barred or without prejudice; appellate-counsel gateway claims fail. |
| Did appellate counsel render ineffective assistance by not asserting trial counsel’s failures? | Appellate counsel should have argued trial counsel was ineffective on truck, zip-tie, paint, and witness investigation issues. | To prevail Lynch had to show issues were obvious on the record and likely to produce reversal; record did not support that. | Court held appellate counsel not ineffective; omitted issues were not obvious or likely to reverse. |
| Were Steed/Warren affidavits newly discovered material evidence? | Their 2012 inspection and alleged statements by Detective Anderson (no zip ties at scene; no tow hook; intact grille; working hood latch) undermined the State’s key evidence and created reasonable doubt. | Affidavits/testimony were equivocal, inconsistent, contradicted by contemporaneous photos and multiple officers’ trial testimony that zip ties were at the scene; not compelling enough to show no reasonable juror could convict. | Court held newly discovered-evidence standard unmet; affidavits produced at most a credibility contest and did not demonstrate that no reasonable trier of fact could convict. |
| Did the postconviction court apply correct legal standards and deny relief properly? | PCRA relief warranted under standards for ineffective assistance and newly discovered evidence. | Postconviction court correctly applied PCRA bars, Strickland principles, and the statutory newly-discovered-evidence criteria. | Court affirmed: correct application of law and denial of PCRA petition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pinder v. State, 367 P.3d 968 (Utah 2015) (explains scope of what counts as raised "at trial" for PCRA procedural bar)
- Honie v. State, 342 P.3d 182 (Utah 2014) (standard of review for PCRA summary-judgment rulings)
- Ross v. State, 293 P.3d 345 (Utah 2012) (procedural gateway for appellate-counsel ineffective-assistance claims and review standards)
- Kell v. State, 194 P.3d 913 (Utah 2008) (PCRA scope and ineffective-assistance standards)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (deficient performance and prejudice test for ineffective assistance)
- Taylor v. State, 156 P.3d 739 (Utah 2007) (standard for reviewing denial of PCRA relief)
- Hamblin v. State, 352 P.3d 144 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (appellate counsel as gateway for otherwise barred trial-counsel claims)
- Menzies v. State, 344 P.3d 581 (Utah 2014) (limits on counsel’s duty to investigate and reasonableness of tactical choices)
- Wickham v. Galetka, 61 P.3d 978 (Utah 2002) (jury may disbelieve recantation or conflicting testimony; credibility contests for jury)