State v. Cheek, 361 P.3d 679

In 2007 Cheek and Parker burglarized cars at Brian Head, stealing a wallet with credit and gas cards and used one stolen card to gas up.
Cheek and Davis burglarized more cars later that month, and Cheek stole a handgun.
Cheek, with Ambree Blackner and Uriah Suhr in Mesquite, Nevada, discussed selling the handgun; Suhr later helped plan a Cedar City robbery.
Davis, Walker, and others robbed Cheek’s Victim at Blackner’s home, tying her up and searching for drugs and money; the group used a gun during the offense.
Police arrived during the attack; Cheek was found hiding in a garage with stolen items; she gave inconsistent statements to investigators.
Cheek was charged with multiple offenses, the cases were consolidated, and she was convicted of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping, sexual battery, aggravated assault, possession of methamphetamine, theft of a firearm, and unlawful acquisition of a financial transaction card.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the witness was properly compelled to testify	Cheek argues Jones should have been compelled to testify.	State contends the issue was unpreserved and plain error not shown.	No reversible error; issue unpreserved and plain error not shown.
Effect of alleged conflict of interest on counsel performance	Cheek claims actual conflict from sexual relationship requires presumption of prejudice.	State contends no actual conflict; any conflict did not affect performance.	No prejudice shown; no actual conflict established; COA affirms denial of new trial.
Whether consolidation of robbery and theft cases was proper	Cheek contends improper consolidation violated rights.	State and counsel invited the error by agreeing to consolidation.	Consolidation was invited error; but affirmed; no reversal for new trial.
Whether new-trial based on newly discovered evidence was warranted	Cheek sought new trial due to Davis recantation letter.	State contested credibility and material impact.	No new trial; evidence deemed impeachment, not likely to change result.
Whether cumulative error warrants reversal	Cheek argues multiple errors collectively prejudiced trial.	State asserts no reversible cumulative error.	No reversal; cumulative error not shown to undermine fairness.

State v. Waterfield, 322 P.3d 1194 (Utah Court of Appeals 2014) (plain-error standard requires obvious harmful error)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error prejudice requires reasonable likelihood of better outcome)
State v. Lenkart, 262 P.3d 1 (Utah Supreme Court 2011) (mixed standard for ineffective assistance of counsel; defer to facts)
Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (actual conflict of interest need not show prejudice)
State v. Brandley, 972 P.2d 78 (Utah Court of Appeals 1998) (actual-conflict prejudice per se when adverse effect shown)
State v. Person, 140 P.3d 584 (Utah Court of Appeals 2006) (conflict requires showing of adverse effect on performance)
State v. Johnson, 784 P.2d 1135 (Utah Supreme Court 1989) (404(b) admissibility to show intent; part of a single episode)
State v. Montoya, 84 P.3d 1183 (Utah Supreme Court 2004) (newly discovered evidence must render different outcome probable)
State v. Wengreen, 167 P.3d 516 (Utah Court of Appeals 2007) (impeachment value of newly discovered evidence limited)
State v. Pinder, 114 P.3d 551 (Utah Supreme Court 2005) (credibility and best interests in evaluating new-trial motions)
State v. Graham, 291 P.3d 243 (Utah Court of Appeals 2012) (acrimonious counsel-client relationships not automatically conflicts)