State v. Legg, 324 P.3d 656

Legg completed a jail term that was part of his probation, told his probation officer he was homeless, and was instructed to call every day until he established a residence; he failed to call most days and was later arrested at a scheduled in-person meeting.
A search incident to that arrest found a small amount of cocaine residue in a pill bottle Legg used for prescription meds; a contemporaneous drug test was negative and a later jury acquitted him of controlled-substance possession.
At the probation-revocation hearing the court found three violations: (1) knowing possession of a controlled substance, (2) failure to be cooperative/compliant/truthful (failure to call), and (3) failure to establish a residence of record.
The court expressed reservations about revoking probation quickly and questioned the probation officer’s promptness in escalating the matter.
The court’s oral findings initially established control and awareness of a substance “whatever it was,” then, after defense objection, stated Legg knew it was a controlled substance without articulating the evidentiary basis.
The appellate court affirmed the finding on failure to call, but remanded the other two findings (possession and residence) for the trial court to identify the evidence and reasoning it relied on before final revocation decision.

Issue	Legg's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether evidence showed Legg knowingly possessed a controlled substance	Legg: insufficient evidence he knew the substance’s narcotic character	State: trial court could infer knowledge from control and handling of bottle	Remanded — trial court failed to state the evidence/reasoning showing knowledge of narcotic character; cannot confirm willfulness
Whether Legg willfully failed to be cooperative/compliant/truthful (failure to call)	Legg: calls requirement unclear and nonwillful	State: Legg had means, number, and left messages; failure was willful	Affirmed — evidence supports willfulness on calling requirement
Whether Legg willfully failed to establish a residence of record	Legg: homelessness for one week does not show willfulness; may be beyond his control	State: daily call requirement functionally substituted for residence requirement; noncompliance supports violation	Remanded — trial court did not specify whether finding rested on failure to call or failure to obtain residence and must clarify facts/reasoning
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to revocation	Legg: counsel should have objected to insufficient-willfulness findings	State: objection to failure-to-call finding would have been futile	Partially rejected — counsel not ineffective for failing to object to the failure-to-call finding; other IAC claims not addressed due to remand

State v. Jameson, 800 P.2d 798 (Utah 1990) (trial court discretion to grant, modify, or revoke probation)
State v. Peterson, 869 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (preponderance standard for probation violation)
State v. Maestas, 997 P.2d 314 (Utah Ct.App. 2000) (willfulness requirement for probation violations)
State v. Hodges, 798 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct.App. 1990) (remand appropriate where record does not reveal evidence relied on)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (due process protections for probation revocation hearings)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (written statement of reasons required for parole revocation)
Black v. Romano, 471 U.S. 606 (1985) (need for findings to allow review of revocation)
Morishita v. Morris, 702 F.2d 207 (10th Cir. 1983) (transcript may suffice; written findings required if record does not disclose basis)
State v. Winters, 896 P.2d 872 (Utah 1995) (possession requires dominion, knowledge of presence, and narcotic character)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error standard)
State v. Kelley, 1 P.3d 546 (Utah 2000) (failure to raise futile objections is not ineffective assistance)