State v. Galindo, 452 P.3d 519

Patrick Galindo shot a man four times and was charged with attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a restricted person; trial was bifurcated and the attempted-murder charge went to jury trial.
Defense counsel petitioned for a competency evaluation; the court appointed two psychologists, Dr. Hawks and Dr. Wilkinson.
Both psychologists ultimately concluded Galindo was competent to stand trial; Dr. Hawks reported he had not spoken with trial counsel during his evaluation.
At the competency hearing trial counsel stipulated to competency based on the two reports; the court found Galindo competent and the jury later convicted him of attempted murder.
On appeal Galindo argued ineffective assistance of counsel for (1) stipulating to competency and (2) failing to talk to Dr. Hawks; he also sought a Rule 23B remand to supplement the record.
The court denied the Rule 23B motion and affirmed, holding counsel’s stipulation was reasonable given the unanimous expert reports and that the proffered affidavit did not show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s stipulation to competency was constitutionally ineffective	Galindo: stipulating was unreasonable given his low IQ and purported inability to assist or understand proceedings	State: two court-appointed experts found Galindo competent; low IQ alone insufficient; counsel reasonably relied on reports	Counsel’s performance was not deficient; stipulation was reasonable; claim fails
Whether counsel’s failure to speak with Dr. Hawks was constitutionally ineffective (and whether remand under Rule 23B is warranted)	Galindo: counsel’s affidavit shows Galindo couldn’t assist; had counsel told Dr. Hawks, the clinician’s or court’s competency finding likely would have changed	State: the claim is speculative without additional facts; even proffered affidavit does not show prejudice or that Hawks’ assessment would change	Rule 23B remand denied; no reasonable probability of a different outcome shown; claim fails

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
State v. Bond, 361 P.3d 104 (Utah 2015) (explains deficient-performance and prejudice standards)
State v. Nelson, 355 P.3d 1031 (Utah 2015) (presumption of competent assistance and standard for unreasonable performance)
Jacobs v. State, 20 P.3d 382 (Utah 2001) (counsel may reasonably rely on unanimous expert competency opinions)
State v. Griffin, 441 P.3d 1166 (Utah 2015) (Rule 23B remand requires nonspeculative affidavits showing deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Lopez, 438 P.3d 950 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (standard when ineffective-assistance claim is raised first on appeal)
State v. Beverly, 435 P.3d 160 (Utah 2018) (cumulative-error doctrine inapplicable when no errors to accumulate)