State v. Martinez, 464 P.3d 1170

Gilberto Martinez lived with his partner (Grandmother), her daughter (Mother), a teenage son, and Mother’s young daughter A.O.; A.O. referred to Martinez as “uncle.”
In March 2017 A.O. (then 5) disclosed that Martinez put his penis in her mouth (initially said twice; at trial said five times and also alleged vaginal penetration). CPS and police interviewed A.O.; police later interviewed Martinez in Spanish.
The State charged Martinez with two counts of first-degree sodomy on a child; at a two-day jury trial A.O., Mother, the CPS interviewer, a psychologist, and officers testified; jury convicted on both counts.
Post-conviction, Martinez moved for a new trial/arrest of judgment alleging ineffective assistance: (1) counsel failed to move to suppress Martinez’s police interview for insufficient Miranda warnings; (2) counsel failed to call Grandmother as a defense witness; (3) counsel failed to call Martinez to testify or to obtain an affirmative waiver.
At an evidentiary hearing trial counsel testified about extensive preparation and articulated strategic reasons for not calling Grandmother or Martinez; the trial court found counsel deficient on the Miranda-warning issue but found no prejudice and otherwise denied relief.
On appeal the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed: even assuming some deficiency on Miranda, Martinez could not show prejudice; counsel’s choices about witnesses and not calling Martinez were reasonable strategic decisions.

Issue	Martinez's Argument	Trial Counsel/State's Argument	Held
Failure to move to suppress police interview (Miranda)	Warnings were insufficient; counsel should have moved to suppress the interview	Counsel reviewed transcript and saw no Miranda problem; even if deficient, interview added little and suppression would not change outcome	Court found warning language ambiguous (deficient) but no prejudice — exclusion wouldn’t likely change verdict; claim fails
Failure to call Grandmother as defense witness	Grandmother would have rebutted Mother’s timeline and disputed being alone with Martinez; her absence deprived Martinez of effective assistance	Counsel met and prepped Grandmother but found her inconsistent, biased, emotional, and worried her testimony and visual presence (age disparity) could hurt credibility/optics; strategic choice to avoid harm	Court held counsel made informed strategic decision with reasonable bases; no deficient performance
Failure to call Martinez/testify and lack of affirmative waiver	Martinez would have proclaimed innocence; counsel should have secured on-record waiver or allowed Martinez to testify	Counsel repeatedly discussed right to testify; recommended against testifying (risk of damaging cross-examination including interview); Martinez did not object or insist — silence inferred assent	Court held counsel’s recommendation was reasonable and defendant’s silence permitted inference of waiver; no deficient performance

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (requirement and content of custodial warnings)
Archuleta v. Galetka, 267 P.3d 232 (Utah 2011) (ineffective-assistance standards and need to show both deficiency and prejudice)
State v. Garcia, 424 P.3d 171 (Utah 2017) (assessment of prejudice under Strickland considering totality of evidence)
Tyler v. State, 850 P.2d 1250 (Utah 1993) (calling witnesses and trial tactics are strategic decisions of counsel)