State v. Millard
2010 UT App 355
| Utah Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Millard offered Ben Desvari $5,000 to kill Hyatt, linking Millard to a planned murder.
- Ben unsuccessfully approached Hyatt in Grantsville; later Brinkerhoff attempted to kill Hyatt with a knife when contacted by associates.
- Brinkerhoff met with Millard and Ben; Brinkerhoff later attacked Hyatt, resulting in a confrontation and 911 call.
- Investigation led to arrest of Millard; witnesses Brinkerhoff, Ben, and others received immunity for testimony.
- Defendant was charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit aggravated murder and convicted by a jury on both counts.
- Post-trial, defense raised numerous ineffective-assistance claims and sought a rule 23B remand; the remand found no deficient performance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance standard applied | Millard contends counsel fell short under Strickland. | Millard asserts multiple failures by counsel prejudiced outcome. | No reversible error; Strickland not satisfied. |
| Failure to call witnesses and investigation | Defense should have called identified witnesses; investigation was deficient. | Counsel's strategic decisions and investigation were inadequate. | Insufficient prejudice; no ineffective assistance proven. |
| Right to testify and counsel's handling | Counsel prevented defendant from testifying improperly. | Counsel violated constitutional rights by waiving testimony without adequate disclosure. | Rule 23B remand findings uphold no violation; argument rejected. |
| Phone records admission and stipulation | Phone records properly admitted via stipulation. | Stipulation and admission were improper and prejudicial. | Admissibility and prejudice not shown; ineffective assistance not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barber, 206 P.3d 1223 (Utah App 2009) (deference to trial court on factual findings; Strickland analysis clarified)
- State v. Simmons, 5 P.3d 1228 (Utah 2000) (two-prong Strickland test for ineffective assistance)
- State v. Clark, 89 P.3d 162 (Utah 2004) (high presumption of reasonable professional assistance)
- State v. Wright, 90 P.3d 644 (Utah App 2004) (prejudice prong requires probability of different outcome)
- Peak Alarm Co. v. Salt Lake City Corp., 243 P.3d 1221 (Utah 2010) (meaningful briefing required for appellate marshaling of evidence)
- Ostermiller v. Ostermiller, 233 P.3d 489 (Utah 2010) (appellate review standards on factual findings)