State v. Garcia
2017 UT App 200
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- At a neighbor’s barbecue, an altercation left Husband stabbed 13 times and Wife assaulted; Wife later identified Jose Amparo Garcia (Defendant) as one of the assailants.
- Police arrested Friend and Defendant; Friend initially blamed Defendant for the stabbing at interview but later (after plea) testified at Defendant’s trial that he alone stabbed Husband.
- Defendant admitted in a police interview to punching and kicking Husband but denied stabbing; he said he feared gang retaliation for "snitching."
- The State charged Defendant with attempted murder (with in-concert and deadly-weapon enhancements) and assault; jury convicted on attempted murder (first-degree with enhancements) and misdemeanor assault.
- Defendant, represented by retained counsel, now appeals arguing (1) ineffective assistance of counsel (conceding assault and failing to object to gang evidence) and (2) trial court error for not further investigating a post-verdict letter expressing dissatisfaction with counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel was ineffective for conceding Defendant assaulted the victim | State: concession was a tactical choice to limit exposure and argue lack of intent for attempted murder | Garcia: concession legally admitted accomplice liability to attempted murder | Court: Counsel’s concession was a reasonable tactical choice and did not admit accomplice intent for attempted murder; no ineffective assistance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to gang-affiliation evidence | State: gang evidence was relevant to "in concert" enhancement and explained inconsistent statements | Garcia: gang evidence was unfairly prejudicial and counsel should have objected | Court: Counsel had tactical reasons to admit/allow gang evidence; objections likely futile under Rules 404/403; no ineffective assistance |
| Whether trial court erred by not further inquiring into defendant’s post-verdict dissatisfaction with retained counsel | State: no further inquiry required where counsel was retained and defendant could fire counsel or appeal | Garcia: court should have conducted a Pursifell-type inquiry into complaints | Court: No plain error—Pursifell obligation applies to appointed counsel; defendant showed no prejudice and had alternatives (fire counsel or appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance test: deficient performance + prejudice)
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to counsel in criminal prosecutions)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (right to effective assistance applies to retained and appointed counsel)
- State v. Briggs, 197 P.3d 628 (Utah 2008) (accomplice liability requires intent that underlying offense be committed)
- State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (standard for reviewing facts in light most favorable to jury verdict)
- State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (trial court inquiry into complaints about appointed counsel)
- State v. Mohamud, 395 P.3d 133 (Utah 2017) (prejudice prong discussion under ineffective assistance analysis)