State v. Franco, 283 P.3d 1004

Franco was convicted in the Third District, Salt Lake, of forcible sexual abuse.
Franco filed posttrial letters alleging counsel conflict and dissatisfaction with trial representation.
Franco argued the trial court failed to inquire into the need to substitute counsel after his complaints.
The court declined to remand under the Vessey rule because the complaint was raised posttrial.
The court considered whether the posttrial complaints support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Ultimately the court affirmed Franco’s conviction, finding no deficient performance or improper trial strategy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to inquire into substitution of counsel	Franco asserts pretrial inquiry was required	Franco argues failure to inquire violated Pursifell/Vessey	Remand not required; Vessey rule inapplicable posttrial
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel failed to present Franco's theory of extortion	Counsel's strategy was reasonable; no proof of deficient performance	Conviction affirmed; no ineffective assistance shown

Pursifell v. State, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (pretrial inquiry favored to safeguard Sixth Amendment rights)
State v. Vessey, 967 P.2d 960 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (remand for substitution only when pretrial conflict shown)
State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25 (Utah) (deficient performance standard applied to Strickland claim)
State v. Nicholls, 2009 UT 12 (Utah) (objective standard for counsel performance; strong presumption of adequacy)
State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (counsel decisions and defendant rights to effective assistance)
State v. Wood, 648 P.2d 71 (Utah 1982) (trial tactics and deference to counsel decisions)