State v. Bozarth, 501 P.3d 116

Dispatch received a call from Bozarth’s mother reporting erratic, possibly drug-related behavior; the parole officer was contacted and authorized police to check on Bozarth and later to search his bedroom.
Police found Bozarth agitated in the yard, handcuffed him, and after mother and the parole officer authorized a search, the corporal entered Bozarth’s bedroom and observed drug paraphernalia and a crystalline substance.
Bozarth was charged; the court appointed counsel, but Bozarth elected to represent himself with a limited-role standby counsel; he filed a motion to suppress and proceeded largely pro se at the suppression hearing.
Standby counsel filed a memorandum supporting the suppression motion several months late; the district court denied the suppression motion on three independent grounds (parole-search authorization, homeowner consent, and reasonable suspicion/probable cause).
Bozarth pleaded no contest to a reduced misdemeanor while reserving the right to appeal “prior court rulings”; he appealed, arguing (1) the suppression ruling was erroneous, (2) standby counsel was ineffective, and (3) his waiver of counsel was not knowing and intelligent.

Issue	Bozarth's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Denial of motion to suppress	Officers lacked reasonable suspicion to search bedroom; mother could not consent to search of his private room	Search lawful under parole agreement (suspicionless with parole‑officer approval); mother consented; alternatively reasonable suspicion/probable cause existed	Affirmed. Appellant failed to challenge the primary parole‑search ground; parole search lawful under Samson and alternative grounds supported denial
Ineffective assistance of standby counsel	Counsel was constitutionally ineffective for filing suppression memorandum months late	Claim not properly before appellate court—waived/forfeited by plea because no pre‑trial ruling on ineffective assistance was reserved under Rule 11(j)	Dismissed as procedurally barred; not preserved by conditional plea
Validity of waiver of right to counsel	Waiver not knowing/intelligent: no Frampton colloquy, unclear standby counsel role, and poor pro se performance	Bozarth clearly and unequivocally relinquished counsel, understood risks and responsibilities, and repeatedly confirmed limited standby role; burden is on defendant to prove invalid waiver	Affirmed. Waiver valid on the record despite absence of full Frampton colloquy; defendant failed to meet burden to show invalid waiver

Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006) (parolees have diminished expectations of privacy; suspicionless searches permissible when predicated on clear parole condition)
State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) (discusses burden on defendant to show waiver of counsel was not knowing and recommends detailed colloquy)
State v. Pedockie, 137 P.3d 716 (Utah 2006) (analyzes standards for knowing and intelligent waiver and review of record absent colloquy)
State v. Rhinehart, 167 P.3d 1046 (Utah 2007) (guilty/no‑contest pleas waive nonjurisdictional pre‑plea errors unless expressly reserved)
State v. Rigby, 433 P.3d 803 (Utah 2018) (where a ruling rests on independent grounds, appellant must challenge each ground or appellate court will affirm)