State v. Gunter
304 P.3d 866
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Gunter was convicted in the Utah Court of Appeals of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and four counts of lewdness involving a child.
- Authorities recorded a telephone call in which the child confronted Gunter; he initially denied some allegations but later admitted responsibility.
- Gunter’s defense was repeatedly reassigned to different attorneys; discovery, subpoenas, and court-ordered funding for investigation occurred.
- Gunter failed to appear for several review hearings, leading to bond forfeiture and a cash-only arrest warrant; a preliminary hearing occurred where one count was dismissed.
- Approximately two weeks before trial, Chamberlain replaced Cramer as counsel; suppression motions were heard, and the trial proceeded in absentia against Gunter.
- After trial, Gunter moved for a new trial alleging involuntary absence and ineffective assistance of counsel; the court denied, and Gunter appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Remand for ineffective-assistance record | Gunter seeks 23B remand to develop record on Cramer/Chamberlain effectiveness. | Gunter contends record lacks sufficient detail for appellate review. | Remand denied; record shows no clear prejudice. |
| Trial in absentia and voluntariness inquiry | Gunter argues absence was involuntary and inquiry incomplete. | State contends absence voluntary; inquiry omission harmless. | Error harmless; posttrial evidence supported voluntariness finding. |
| Pretrial counsel effectiveness (Cramer) | Cramer deficient for failing to communicate and obtain consent to continuances. | Gunter replaced Cramer; thus Cramer’s actions cannot affect outcome. | Not deficient; replacement by Chamberlain bars prejudice. |
| Trial counsel effectiveness (Chamberlain) | Chamberlain ineffective for not notifying court of absence circumstances and limited retention. | Chamberlain adequately represented trial; absence found voluntary. | Not deficient; no prejudice shown; absence voluntary. |
| Overall ineffective-assistance outcome | Record supports ineffective-assistance claims. | No demonstrable deficiency or prejudice. | No reversible error; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pando, 2005 UT App 384 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (absent defendant must be shown to have knowingly waived presence; inquiry required)
- State v. Wanosik (Wanosik II), 79 P.3d 937 (Utah 2003) (voluntariness and inquiry in absentia; mixed law and fact)
- State v. Wanosik (Wanosik I), 31 P.3d 615 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (harmlessness of inadequate inquiry at sentencing/absentia)
- State v. Houtz, 714 P.2d 677 (Utah 1986) (requirement that voluntariness not be presumed; need inquiry)
- State v. Johnston, 13 P.3d 175 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (remand under Rule 23B requires specific factual allegations)
- Kell v. State, 194 P.3d 913 (Utah Ct. App. 2008) (ineffective assistance not shown by futile conduct)
- Chacon, 962 P.2d 48 (Utah 1998) (need specific facts to support ineffective-assistance claim)