State v. Galindo
2017 UT App 117
| Utah Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Victim began a sexual relationship with Galindo when she was 15 and it continued until age 17; Victim lived with Galindo and her mother and viewed him as a father figure.
- State charged Galindo with four first-degree felonies (two counts each of forcible sodomy and rape); he pleaded guilty to two third-degree felonies (unlawful sexual conduct with a 16–17 year old) pursuant to a plea agreement.
- At sentencing Galindo waived a presentence investigation and asked for immediate sentencing and concurrent terms, noting 17 months already served and deportation risk.
- The State requested consecutive sentences; prosecutor referred to Victim as Galindo’s “step-daughter.” Galindo asked to speak but was told to consult counsel; he did not press further.
- The district court imposed consecutive prison terms, citing the number of counts, Victim’s age, and Galindo’s role as an authority/step‑parent figure.
- On appeal Galindo argued (1) the court relied on the prosecutor’s erroneous “step‑daughter” statement, (2) the court failed to consider legally required sentencing factors, and (3) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object or present mitigating evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Galindo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s misstatement that Victim was his “step‑daughter” | Statement accurately described defendant’s role and supported consecutive sentences | Misstatement was erroneous and court plainly erred by relying on it; counsel ineffective for not objecting | No plain error or prejudice; record shows Galindo functioned as an authority/father figure so correction would not change outcome |
| Failure to consider required sentencing factors (history, character, rehabilitation) | Court need only consider factors and record shows it received all info parties wished to present | Court failed to consider mitigating evidence; counsel ineffective for not ensuring consideration | No plain error; defendant waived PSI, asked immediate sentencing, presented no mitigating evidence—no prejudice shown |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to present mitigating evidence at sentencing | Counsel argued mitigating points (time served, deportation, acceptance); no additional mitigating evidence offered | Counsel deficient by not presenting mitigation; prejudice likely would change result | Claim fails for lack of prejudice—no reasonable probability sentence would differ absent alleged errors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (plain‑error standard and requirement that error be prejudicial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance: deficiency and prejudice)
- State v. Munguia, 253 P.3d 1082 (Utah 2011) (exceptional‑circumstances doctrine; prejudice analysis same for plain error and ineffective assistance)
- State v. Kozlov, 276 P.3d 1207 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (prejudice analysis applies equally to plain error and ineffective assistance claims)