State v. Perez, 345 P.3d 1150

Jesus Edgar Perez was charged with object rape; information filed Dec 2, 2011; amended Jan 5, 2012.
Perez was declared indigent (Dec 29, 2011), initially assigned a public defender, then retained private counsel in March 2012.
In April 2012 Perez moved for publicly funded defense resources (investigator, experts) to assist his privately retained counsel.
Salt Lake County opposed, arguing May 8, 2012 amendments to the Indigent Defense Act (IDA) barred provision of public resources to indigent defendants represented by private counsel.
The district court applied the pre-amendment IDA (relying on State v. Parduhn), granting Perez’s motion; the County appealed interlocutorily.
The Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the 2012 IDA amendments apply to Perez’s April 2012 motion (i.e., whether the amendments operate retroactively).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 2012 IDA amendments apply retroactively as a "clarification" of prior law	Perez: pre-amendment IDA controlled; Parduhn allowed public resources separate from counsel	County: amendments merely clarified existing law and thus apply to pending cases	Court: repudiated a freestanding "clarification" exception; did not apply amendments retroactively
Whether the statute governing the right to public defense resources is procedural (thus applying to pending cases) or whether the relevant event is the defendant's assertion of the right	Perez: the controlling event is the filing of a matured request for resources; apply law in effect when request was made (April 2012)	County: procedural changes apply to pending actions and should govern because case was pending when amendments enacted	Court: identifies the regulated event as the assertion/vesting of the right to government-funded defense resources; apply law in effect at time the right matured (April 2012), so amendments do not apply

State v. Parduhn, 283 P.3d 488 (Utah 2011) (construed pre-amendment IDA to allow provision of defense resources to indigent defendants separate from counsel)
State v. Clark, 251 P.3d 829 (Utah 2011) (apply law existing at time of the event regulated; substance/procedure distinction as tool for identifying the event)
Gressman v. State, 323 P.3d 998 (Utah 2013) (repudiated a freestanding clarifying-amendment retroactivity exception)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) (statute is retroactive if it attaches new legal consequences to completed events)
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (state courts must provide counsel to indigent criminal defendants)
Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971) (indigent defendant entitled to basic tools of an adequate defense)