State v. De La Cruz Diaz, 282 P.3d 1041

Utah Court of Appeals sustains two first-degree sodomy convictions of Jose Hector de la Cruz-Diaz.
Appeal raises ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims on investigation, expert testimony, age at offense, and admissibility of nurse testimony.
Court uses Strickland standard; claims require showing deficient performance and prejudice with an adequate record.
Record is incomplete for several IAC prongs; the court often presumes effective counsel when the record is inadequate.
Court declines to reverse on cumulative error; affirms the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was counsel's investigation/preparation deficient?	De la Cruz-Diaz contends counsel failed to review medical/CJC records.	Record insufficient to show failure to investigate; remand motion lacked support.	Record inadequate; presumed effective performance.
Was failure to consult/call an expert witness deficient and prejudicial?	An expert could rebut leading interviewing techniques and memory suggestibility.	Counsel did not consult/call an expert to challenge the evidence.	No demonstrated deficiency or prejudice; testimony supported defense strategy.
Did counsel fail to challenge the age/district jurisdiction issue?	Birth year discrepancy could affect jurisdiction; age element at issue.	Record lacks proof of correct birth date; cannot establish oversight.	Record inadequate to evaluate; assume competent representation.
Was failing to object to out-of-court nurse statements ineffective assistance?	Nurse statements were inadmissible hearsay or improper under rules of evidence.	Counsel reasonably allowed testimony to highlight inconsistencies; strategic choice.	Rational strategic basis shown; performance not deficient.
Do cumulative errors require reversal?	Combination of errors harmed trial integrity.	No single or cumulative prejudice shown.	Cumulative error doctrine does not apply; affirm.

State v. Perry, 204 P.3d 880 (Utah 2009) (IAC requires both deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Lenkart, 262 P.3d 1 (Utah 2011) (opinion explains deficient performance and prejudice burden)
State v. Templin, 805 P.2d 182 (Utah 1990) (Strickland standard comparative framework)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (Utah 2000) (record adequacy governs review of performance)
State v. Johnston, 13 P.3d 175 (Utah 2000) (Rule 23B supplementing record on appeal)
State v. Charles, 263 P.3d 469 (Utah App. 2011) (evaluate counsel's conduct from perspective at time)
Parsons v. Barnes, 871 P.2d 516 (Utah 1994) (cumulative error not established without prejudice)
Fernandez v. Cook, 870 P.2d 870 (Utah 1993) (ineffective assistance cannot be speculative)