State v. Calata, 521 P.3d 920

On July 13, 2017, Utah Highway Patrol troopers attempted a felony stop of Maximo Calata after a license-plate check showed the car’s plate was stolen; Calata fled and led a high-speed chase up to ~105 mph.
The pursuit ended after troopers executed two PIT maneuvers (at ~40–50 mph) that stopped Calata but damaged both patrol cars; Calata was arrested and pled guilty to failure to stop at command of police.
At sentencing the district court ordered Calata to pay $3,071.01 in restitution (the parties stipulated to the amount) but refused, over Calata’s objection, to calculate a separate court-ordered restitution figure, reasoning that such a determination was only required if the defendant is placed on probation.
Calata appealed, arguing the court erred by declining to determine court-ordered restitution and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance in restitution proceedings (failing to request apportionment of fault and failing to raise constitutional objections).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the award of complete restitution, rejected both ineffective-assistance claims, but reversed and remanded for the district court to determine court-ordered restitution under the Restitution Act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Calata)	Held
Whether the district court must calculate court-ordered restitution in addition to complete restitution	Conceded the court erred and remand is required to determine court-ordered restitution	Statute and precedent require mandatory determination of both complete and court-ordered restitution	Reversed and remanded: court must determine court-ordered restitution under the Restitution Act
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not requesting apportionment of fault (LRA/restition)	Failure to request apportionment was reasonable given unsettled law and likely futility	Counsel was ineffective for not requesting apportionment under Restitution Act and the Liability Reform Act	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choice was reasonable given lack of clear precedent and low likelihood troopers’ fault would meet statutory threshold
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not raising constitutional jury/due-process objection to restitution procedure	Reasonable to forgo novel constitutional challenge; tactical choice given facts and uncertain law	Counsel was ineffective for failing to argue restitution infringes civil jury right and due process	No ineffective assistance: counsel reasonably declined to press unpreserved, unsettled constitutional claims

State v. Ogden, 416 P.3d 1132 (Utah 2018) (held proximate-cause civil standard applies in restitution hearings)
State v. Laycock, 214 P.3d 104 (Utah 2009) (observed comparative-negligence issues may be relevant to restitution)
State v. Grant, 499 P.3d 3 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (discussed distinction between complete and court-ordered restitution)
State v. Blake, 517 P.3d 414 (Utah Ct. App. 2022) (noted that the complete-vs-court-ordered restitution distinction no longer exists in current law)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (established two-part ineffective-assistance standard)