Ross v. State
2012 UT 93
| Utah | 2012Background
- Ross was convicted of aggravated murder and attempted aggravated murder in 2004.
- He filed a pro se PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel and sought court-appointed counsel.
- The post-conviction court denied premature counsel appointments and granted summary judgment on issues raised.
- The court found trial counsel’s failure to raise extreme emotional distress was strategic and not obvious on the record.
- The court also concluded appellate counsel’s failure to raise the trial-counsel issue was conclusively supported by the in-chambers conference.
- We reverse and remand for evidentiary proceedings to determine appellate counsel’s effectiveness and, if warranted, trial counsel’s effectiveness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial-counsel ineffectiveness | Ross argues appellate counsel neglected a meritorious claim | State contends the claim is unclear and not reasonably discoverable on direct appeal | Disputed facts preclude summary judgment; remand for review of appellate counsel's effectiveness |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not raising extreme emotional distress | Ross asserts the defense was plausible given the record | State argues the defense was not obvious or properly supported | Genuine issues of material fact require remand for evidentiary hearing on trial-counsel claim |
| Whether the PCRA court erred by granting summary judgment on the appellate-counsel claim | Ross contends facts show appellate failure to investigate | State maintains proper focus on in-chambers conference; no error | Summary judgment improper; remand to address merits of appellate-counsel claim |
| Whether the trial-counsel claim is procedurally barred pending appellate-counsel determination | Ross contends appellate-ineffectiveness gateway issue must be resolved first | State argues trial claim barred if appellate issue not proven ineffective | Cannot determine procedural-bar status until appellate counsel issue is resolved; remand proposed |
| Whether the court should appoint counsel on remand | Ross requests pro bono counsel due to complexity | State notes discretion but complex issues warrant review | Court did not abuse discretion initially; remand may warrant renewed appointment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ross, 174 P.3d 628 (Utah Supreme Court, 2007) (relevant precedent on course-of-conduct and evidence of jealousy and anger)
- Gardner v. State, 234 P.3d 1115 (Utah Supreme Court, 2010) (ineffective assistance framework and standards of review)
- Hutchings v. State, 84 P.3d 1150 (Utah Supreme Court, 2003) (clarifies due process and evidentiary considerations in post-conviction claims)
- Carter v. Galetka, 44 P.3d 626 (Utah Supreme Court, 2001) (standard for evaluating counsel performance and strategies)
- Benvenuto v. State, 165 P.3d 1195 (Utah Supreme Court, 2007) (requires showing failure to raise grounds was due to ineffective assistance)