State v. Naves, 477 P.3d 28

In 1997 Randy Naves pled guilty to three counts of sexual abuse of a child (second-degree felonies), one count of dealing in harmful material to a minor (third-degree felony), and one count of lewdness involving a child (misdemeanor) after admitting to sexually abusing neighborhood boys.
Adult Probation & Parole (AP&P) prepared a detailed presentence report describing prior sexual-offense history, a psychosexual evaluation concluding a poor treatment prognosis and significant risk to reoffend, and recommended consecutive prison terms.
At sentencing defense counsel argued for probation or a residential treatment program, and alternatively urged concurrent sentences; counsel also stated that Naves “had been a pedophile” while arguing Naves had accepted responsibility.
The district court denied probation, imposed prison, and adopted counsel’s “last alternative,” running two sexual-abuse counts concurrently and the remaining counts consecutively.
Naves obtained reinstatement of his appeal period (court found he had not been advised of appeal rights) and appealed, raising ineffective-assistance claims (use of the term “pedophile”; proposing partial concurrency) and a challenge to consecutive sentences.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it rejected both ineffective-assistance claims and held the sentencing decision did not constitute plain error or an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Naves' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Ineffective assistance — counsel called Naves a “pedophile”	Use of the term was prejudicial and constitutionally deficient	Term mirrored PSI and did not change outcome; no prejudice	No prejudice; counsel’s comment unlikely affected sentence; claim fails
Ineffective assistance — counsel proposed partial concurrency as “last alternative”	Offering that alternative was unreasonable and prejudicial	Presenting sentencing options was a reasonable strategic choice and obtained benefit	Not deficient; strategy was reasonable and produced a better result
Abuse of discretion — consecutive vs. concurrent sentences	Court failed to properly weigh statutory factors and should have explained preference for concurrent sentences	Court reviewed PSI and considered required factors; issue unpreserved and fails plain-error review	Issue unpreserved; plain-error review shows no obvious failure to consider factors; affirmed

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
State v. Samul, 436 P.3d 298 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (preservation rule for challenges that sentencing court failed to consider statutory factors for consecutive sentences)
State v. Reece, 349 P.3d 712 (Utah 2015) (wide appellate deference to sentencing courts)
State v. Perkins, 332 P.3d 403 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (use of a detailed PSI supports presumption the court considered statutory factors)
State v. Strunk, 846 P.2d 1297 (Utah 1993) (discussion of statutory preference for concurrent sentences)
State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930 (Utah 1998) (concurrent sentences and Board-of-Pardons flexibility)