State v. Lee, 264 P.3d 239

Lee appeals three issues regarding his guilty plea and subsequent proceedings in the trial court.
Lee argues Sixth Amendment error for an allegedly improper colloquy when he sought new court-appointed counsel.
Lee challenges Rule 11(e) compliance in accepting his guilty plea to forcible sexual abuse, a second-degree felony.
Lee asserts ineffective assistance of trial counsel for coercion, failure to move to withdraw the plea, incompetency at plea/sentencing, and an illegal sentence under Rule 22(e).
Utah Code section 77-13-6(2) bars review of a guilty plea unless withdrawal is pursued before sentence; failure to withdraw forecloses appellate review of the plea’s validity.
The court ultimately affirms Lee’s sentence and holds that Lee’s arguments based on incompetency and counsel’s effectiveness do not establish reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether improper colloquy or coercion claims attack the plea’s validity	Lee contends plea was coerced and colloquy inadequate	Lee argues Sixth Amendment and Rule 11(e) deficiencies	Jurisdictional bar; issues treated as PCR, not reviewable on direct appeal
Whether Rule 11(e) compliance was required or violated in plea	Lee alleges Rule 11(e) failure in entering guilty plea	Lee’s Rule 11(e) claim is subject to PCR and not reviewable on direct appeal	Not reviewable on direct appeal due to jurisdictional bar; PCR governs
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for incompetency-related conduct affecting sentencing	Lee claims counsel failed to raise or address incompetency, affecting sentence	No competent showing of incompetence or prejudicial counsel failure	No ineffective assistance; record supports competent representation and Lee’s competency was not demonstrated
Whether Lee’s sentence was illegal under Rule 22(e)	Lee argues sentence illegal due to counsel/coercion/competency issues	Sentence not patently illegal; Rule 22(e) narrow scope	Sentence affirmed; Rule 22(e) claim rejected as improper and unsupported

State v. Ott, 247 P.3d 344 (2010 UT) (failure to withdraw plea within time bars review of plea validity)
State v. Merrill, 114 P.3d 585 (2005 UT) (jurisdictional nature of withdrawal timing)
State v. Litherland, 12 P.3d 92 (2000 UT) (Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
State v. Arguelles, 63 P.3d 731 (2003 UT) (competency evaluation during guilty plea considerations)
State v. Nicholls, 148 P.3d 990 (2006 UT) (rule 22(e) improper avenue for guilty plea challenges)
State v. Brooks, 908 P.2d 856 (Utah 1995) (patently illegal sentence concepts for Rule 22(e) analysis)
State v. Candedo, 232 P.3d 1008 (2010 UT) (narrow scope of illegal sentence under Rule 22(e))
State v. Reyes, 40 P.3d 630 (2002 UT) (jurisdictional bar when challenging guilty plea)
State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct.App. 1987) (conflict-of-interest concerns as potential good cause for new counsel)