State v. Alvarez-Delvalle, 2012 UT App 96

Defendant Jose Luis Alvarez-Delvalle was convicted by jury of rape under Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-402 (2008) and sentenced; this is an appeal from that conviction and sentence.
Defendant challenged the trial court’s handling of his request for substitute counsel, arguing the Sixth Amendment was violated by an inadequate inquiry and incorrect legal standard.
Defendant sent a September 13, 2009 letter requesting new counsel due to a claimed conflict of interest and lack of faith in his attorney.
A September 15, 2009 pretrial conference included questioning by the court; defense and prosecution commented on representation, and the court denied substitution for lack of a demonstrated good cause.
On appeal, Defendant asserted the inquiry was insufficient and that good cause existed; the court found the inquiry reasonable and no good cause shown, and thus no substitution.
Defendant also asserted ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) for not calling the victim’s mother at trial and for sentencing, but the court held no deficient performance or prejudice existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred in not substituting counsel for good cause	Alvarez-Delvalle argues the court failed to meaningfully inquire and to recognize a conflict.	Alvarez-Delvalle contends there was a conflict of interest and inadequate inquiry entitling substitution.	No Sixth Amendment violation; inquiry adequate, no good cause shown.
Whether defense counsel's performance was deficient by not calling the victim’s mother	Defense counsel failed to call potentially exculpatory testimony from the victim’s mother.	Counsel’s performance was deficient and prejudicial for not presenting that evidence.	Not deficient or prejudicial; no viable basis shown for the mother’s testimony or its admissibility.
Whether Alvarez-Delvalle received ineffective assistance at sentencing	Counsel should have introduced mitigating evidence at sentencing to rebut the PSR.	Counsel’s omissions were prejudicial and would have altered the sentence.	No prejudice; most mitigating factors were already in the PSR and no demonstrated impact on sentence.

State v. Valencia, 2001 UT App 159 (Utah App. 2001) (indigent defendant right to appointed counsel; require meaningful inquiry)
State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (need reasonable non-suggestive inquiry to determine complaints)
State v. Pando, 122 P.3d 672 (Utah App. 2005) (good cause for substitute counsel; burden on defendant)
State v. Lovell, 984 P.2d 382 (Utah 1999) (burden to show conflict or breakdown in attorney-client relationship)
State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (ineffective assistance of counsel; prejudice standard)
State v. Munguia, 253 P.3d 1082 (Utah 2011) (sentencing IAC; totality of evidence; prejudice required)