State v. Alvarez, 2020 UT App 126

Background

Alvarez shot and killed a seller during what began as a purchase meeting and was arrested and charged with aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, multiple assaults, firearm offense, and obstruction.
He was appointed a public defender, expressed dissatisfaction to the court a week before a plea, but did not articulate a specific conflict; the court declined to appoint substitute counsel.
Alvarez and his family retained a private attorney who reviewed discovery and advised that the State’s plea offer was favorable; Alvarez then entered an unconditional guilty plea to felony murder, aggravated robbery, and one count of aggravated assault and stated he was satisfied with appointed counsel.
A retained attorney later filed a limited-appearance motion to continue sentencing to investigate possible plea-withdrawal grounds (including an allegation counsel raised the death-penalty specter); the district court denied the continuance.
At sentencing the court asked Alvarez if he wished to move to withdraw his plea; Alvarez declined and was sentenced. He moved post-sentencing to withdraw the plea; the district court denied relief and on appeal Alvarez raised three challenges (failure to inquire about counsel dissatisfaction, denial of continuance, and ineffective assistance).
The State argued, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that Utah’s plea-withdrawal statute bars consideration on direct appeal of claims challenging the plea or the proceedings that led to it when no timely pre-sentencing motion to withdraw was filed; the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Alvarez)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the court erred by not making further inquiry into Alvarez’s request for substitute counsel	Court should have probed Alvarez’s complaints (including allegation that counsel raised death-penalty) and possibly appointed new counsel	The complaint concerns plea voluntariness; Alvarez never moved to withdraw his plea pre-sentencing, so the plea-withdrawal statute bars direct appellate review	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under the plea-withdrawal statute; issue concerns the plea and was not preserved by a pre-sentence withdrawal motion
Whether denial of a continuance of sentencing was an abuse of discretion	Continuance was needed for retained counsel to investigate plea voluntariness and to prepare a motion to withdraw the plea	The requested continuance challenged the plea process (not the sentence); without a timely motion to withdraw, direct appeal is barred	No jurisdiction to review on direct appeal because no timely plea-withdrawal motion was made; distinction drawn from Ferretti (where a timely withdrawal motion was made)
Whether appointed counsel rendered ineffective assistance (failing to secure substitute counsel; not joining continuance)	Counsel’s actions undermined the voluntariness of the plea and constituted ineffective assistance	Ineffective-assistance claims that challenge the plea’s propriety must first be raised pre-sentencing; the plea-withdrawal statute’s waiver is strict and bars such claims on direct appeal	Barred by the plea-withdrawal statute; court lacks jurisdiction to consider ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal when they concern the plea and were not raised before sentencing
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to decide these claims on direct appeal	Alvarez urged the court to reach the merits of his claims	State argued Utah Code § 77-13-6 and related precedent create a jurisdictional bar absent a pre-sentencing plea-withdrawal motion	Court agreed with State and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction; Rule 23B supplementation denied as moot

Key Cases Cited

State v. Nicholls, 2017 UT App 60, 397 P.3d 709 (explaining plea-withdrawal statute bars non-sentence challenges on direct appeal)
State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, 167 P.3d 1046 (guilty plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
State v. Allgier, 2017 UT 84, 416 P.3d 546 (discussing plea-withdrawal statute as preservation and jurisdictional rule)
State v. Rettig, 2017 UT 83, 416 P.3d 520 (plea-withdrawal statute imposes strict waiver not subject to common-law exceptions)
State v. Scott, 2017 UT App 103, 400 P.3d 1172 (failure to seek to withdraw plea bars review of proceedings that led to plea)
State v. Ferretti, 2011 UT App 321, 263 P.3d 553 (distinguishable: defendant made timely oral motion to withdraw before sentencing and was entitled to continuance for briefing)
State v. Harper, 2020 UT App 84, 466 P.3d 744 (ineffective-assistance claim affecting plea propriety is barred on direct appeal if not raised pre-sentencing)
State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (court must inquire into indigent defendant’s complaints about appointed counsel)