State v. Allen
2015 UT App 163
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- David James Allen pled guilty to attempted distribution of a controlled substance (third-degree felony) with a plea agreement promising a reduction to a class A misdemeanor upon successful probation.
- Allen moved to withdraw his plea pre-sentencing, claiming anxiety and stress; the motion was denied. AP&P prepared a presentence report recommending 0–5 years suspended with formal probation and a mental-health evaluation as a special condition.
- AP&P later filed two probation-violation reports noting Allen failed to engage in counseling/treatment; an agent opined Allen "suffers from multiple mental health disorders" and recommended revocation with 180 days jail.
- At the probation-revocation hearing Allen admitted violations. Trial counsel and AP&P urged consideration of mental-health issues; counsel asked for strict supervision and medication rather than incarceration.
- The court revoked and terminated probation as unsuccessful and ordered 180 days in jail. Allen appealed, arguing ineffective assistance for failing to press mental-illness defenses at the revocation/sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not affirmatively requesting the court consider Allen’s mental illness at probation-revocation sentencing | State contends counsel’s performance was not shown deficient or prejudicial | Allen argues counsel should have insisted the court consider his mental illnesses and seek treatment instead of jail, which would have preserved the plea benefit | Court held Allen failed to show prejudice; ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Whether a "guilty with a mental illness" procedure should have been invoked | State: not applicable because Allen pled ordinary guilty and did not pursue that plea | Allen: trial counsel should have invoked statutes governing guilty with mental illness to require evaluation | Court held statutes inapplicable; Allen did not show such a plea would have produced a different result |
| Whether appellate review is moot because Allen was released from custody | State: release renders appeal moot | Allen: collateral consequences from felony conviction keep appeal live | Court found potential collateral consequences and reached the merits |
| Whether lack of formal mental-health diagnosis defeats prejudice showing | State: Allen produced no diagnosis, only AP&P and counsel opinions | Allen: AP&P agent and counsel comments suffice to establish mental illness | Court held absence of medical evidence undermined any showing of reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- State v. Anderson, 203 P.3d 990 (Utah 2009) (limits on executing or altering previously imposed sentences on revocation)
- State v. Millard, 246 P.3d 151 (Utah Ct. App. 2010) (prejudice requirement for ineffective assistance requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Barnett v. Adams, 273 P.3d 378 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (collateral consequences keep criminal appeals from being moot)
- Duran v. Morris, 635 P.2d 43 (Utah 1981) (release from custody renders case moot only absent collateral consequences)