State v. Bell
380 P.3d 11
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- On May 5, 2013, Bryce D. Bell entered a cell phone store, left angrily, and attempted to open several cars in the parking lot; he entered the victim’s unlocked car and sat inside.
- The car owner and driver confronted Bell; he held rental car keys found in the cup holder, pulled a knife, pointed it at them, saw the owner’s purse on the passenger floor, grabbed the purse, and fled.
- Bystanders chased him, recovered the purse, Bell seized some credit cards and rental keys, and later discarded keys in bushes before being arrested.
- At the station Bell admitted methamphetamine use, said he had not slept for days, later vomited and was taken to the hospital; he later claimed not to remember the incident.
- Charged with multiple counts, Bell was convicted of two first-degree aggravated robberies (one as to the car and one as to the purse) and a misdemeanor; he appealed only the two felony convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two aggravated robbery convictions (car and purse) must merge under single-larceny/single-offense principles | State: Bell had separate intents (Plan A: steal car; Plan B: steal purse) so two offenses | Bell: taking the car and contents was a single act/intent; counts should merge | Court: convictions merge — one aggravated robbery for the car and its contents (purse vacated) |
| Whether factual impossibility (couldn’t drive car without its key) defeats aggravated-robbery-of-car conviction | Bell: impossible to steal car because he lacked car key | State: attempt suffices; impossibility is not a defense to attempt | Held: attempt statute controls; impossibility not a defense; conviction for robbery of the car (as attempt) upheld |
| Whether voluntary intoxication required directed verdict because intoxication negated requisite intent | Bell: meth use left him incapable of forming the required intent | State: evidence supported that Bell intended to use a weapon to take property; intoxication evidence did not negate intent | Held: evidence sufficient to submit intoxication issue to jury; no deficient performance for failing to move for directed verdict |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to merge counts or for not seeking directed verdict on intoxication | Bell: counsel should have moved to merge and moved for directed verdict on intoxication | State: merger motion likely futile; evidence defeated intoxication claim | Held: counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not moving to merge (no tactical basis for omission); failure to move for directed verdict on intoxication was not ineffective because a directed verdict would not have been granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rasabout, 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015) (discusses single-larceny rule and allowable unit of prosecution)
- State v. Irvin, 169 P.3d 798 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (held single aggravated robbery where defendant took cash and car keys in a single encounter)
- State v. Crosby, 927 P.2d 638 (Utah 1996) (applies intent test for whether multiple takings constitute one offense)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
- Honie v. State, 342 P.3d 182 (Utah 2014) (explains voluntary-intoxication defense requires incapacity to form requisite mental state)