State v. Gomez, 363 P.3d 552

Gomez was convicted in Utah district court on three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, and the convictions were affirmed.
Appellate counsel filed a hybrid brief: one standard issue and two Anders issues deemed frivolous.
Anders issues claimed trial counsel was ineffective for insufficient preparation and for failing to cross-examine the children's mother about prompting false accusations.
The standard-brief issue argued the district court plainly erred by asking for clarification of the younger child's testimony, potentially aiding the State.
The trial involved an older child describing in-shower acts by Gomez and a younger child describing similar acts; after lunch, the younger child clarified that her buttocks touched Gomez's private; a mistrial motion was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the district court’s clarification question plain error or neutrality violation?	Gomez argues the judge’s question signaled to the State a defect.	State contends the question was within the court’s discretion and not prejudicial.	No plain error; affirmed.
Was trial counsel ineffective for not timely objecting to the judge’s question (alternative plain-error claim)?	Gomez asserts ineffective assistance for failing to object.	State argues no prejudice given total evidence establishing the element.	No relief; affirmed.

Beck, 2007 UT 60 (Utah 2007) (discretionary limits on trial-court questioning; not violated where questioning remained within bounds)
Mellen, 583 P.2d 46 (Utah 1978) (trial judge may question witnesses to clarify the evidence)
Flores, 855 P.2d 258 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (Anders-like briefing requires demonstrating frivolous issues)