437 P.3d 425
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- King, while intoxicated, tried to forcibly enter a home; during the struggle a shoe broke a window. He later fixed the window and offered to pay for damages before sentencing.
- King pleaded guilty to burglary (third-degree felony) and a misdemeanor; the court ordered "full and complete restitution" but left amount open.
- Three weeks after sentencing, King’s private counsel filed a Notice of Withdrawal (without a court order approving withdrawal) and then did not participate further.
- The State filed a Motion for Restitution requesting $400, served on counsel but not on King; no documentation supported the amount and no opposition was filed. The court signed the restitution order without a hearing.
- King later learned of the order, appeared pro se at a review hearing, objected that the only damage was a window he had already repaired, and stated his attorney never contacted him about restitution. The court appointed counsel for future proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether King was denied the right to counsel during restitution proceedings | State: restitution was properly ordered as unopposed; no explicit argument contesting right to counsel asserted on appeal | King: his counsel effectively abandoned him after sentencing and he lacked representation during restitution | Court assumed right to counsel applied but did not decide actual abandonment; did not reach this issue because of ineffective assistance ruling |
| Whether King received ineffective assistance of counsel regarding restitution | State: counsel’s failure to object was tactical or not prejudicial given small amount requested | King: counsel failed to object or advocate, did not contact him, and did not follow withdrawal rules, so performance was deficient and prejudicial | Court held counsel’s failure was constitutionally ineffective; vacated restitution order and remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (1984) (right to counsel includes right to effective assistance; circumstances may render counsel functionally absent)
- Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335 (1980) (effective assistance of counsel applies to appointed and retained counsel alike)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- United States v. Collins, 430 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2005) (an attorney who remains silent due to a pending withdrawal motion can render a defendant effectively unrepresented)