State v. Ayala, 504 P.3d 755

Between Jan 2010 and July 2012 Ayala was in five rear-end accidents; he submitted insurance claims for multiple accidents and received chiropractic treatment payments and vehicle/ trailer damage payments.
In March 2013 an insurer’s private investigator interviewed Ayala with a Spanish interpreter; Ayala (via the interview) admitted he was not injured in the accidents but believed he was entitled to chiropractic benefits under his policy.
The State charged Ayala with a pattern of unlawful activity (based on three accidents), one count of insurance fraud as a third-degree felony (the April 2012 chiropractic claim), and one misdemeanor fraud count (trailer damage); at bench trial Ayala was convicted of the pattern offense and the felony, acquitted on the misdemeanor.
Defense exhibit showed chiropractor bills for six visits from April–May 2012 totaling $1,996.70; the trial court relied on that and Ayala’s interview admissions in convicting on the felony count.
On appeal Ayala sought a rule 23B remand claiming trial counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert interpreter; the trial court held a remand hearing, found counsel knew of interpretation deficiencies and chose cross-examination instead, found experts’ critiques were largely technical and would not have changed the outcome, and the court affirmed conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support felony (>$1,500) insurance fraud	Ayala: State did not prove he received at least $1,500 in fraudulent benefits	State: Chiropractic billing records and claim forms show nearly $1,997 paid	Held: Sufficient evidence (exhibit showing $1,996.70) to support third-degree felony conviction
Whether counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert interpreter	Ayala: Failure to call expert left misleading/interpreted admissions unchallenged, prejudicing defense	State: Counsel elicited the same interpretation deficiencies by cross-examining the interpreter; experts added only technical critiques that would not change outcome	Held: No prejudice shown; counsel’s strategy did not render conviction unreliable; ineffective-assistance claim denied

State v. Jok, 493 P.3d 665 (Utah 2021) (bench-trial sufficiency preserved and reviewed without a preservation motion)
State v. Titus, 286 P.3d 941 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (bench-trial sufficiency reviewed for clear error)
State v. Gordon, 84 P.3d 1167 (Utah 2004) (standard for sustaining bench-trial findings unless against clear weight of evidence)
State v. Prater, 392 P.3d 398 (Utah 2017) (obvious-and-fundamental insufficiency standard for plain error)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (discussion of when evidentiary insufficiency is plain error)
State v. Wright, 481 P.3d 479 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard; reasonable probability of different outcome)
State v. King, 392 P.3d 997 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (deference to trial court findings after rule 23B remand)
State v. Mendoza, 496 P.3d 275 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (errors must undermine confidence in outcome to warrant reversal)