State v. Reyos, 427 P.3d 1203

On Sept. 7, 2012 three friends were robbed at gunpoint in a dimly lit alley in Salt Lake City; two men (robbers) exited a green Honda while two women remained in front seats. The incident lasted ~2–3 minutes.
Witnesses One and Two viewed the primary robber at close range (3–5 feet), noted extensive tattoos and a shaved head, and later participated in photo lineups that identified Reyos as Robber One.
Photo arrays (6 color photos) were administered 6 and 10 days after the robbery; procedures were double‑blind and photos matched general characteristics (shaved head, facial tattoos). Witnesses testified they were confident in their IDs.
Reyos argued trial counsel was ineffective for not moving to exclude the out‑of‑court identifications and later challenged sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery convictions and application of the Group Crime Enhancement (acting in concert with two or more persons).
The jury convicted Reyos on three counts of aggravated robbery and applied the Group Crime Enhancement; Reyos appealed, claiming ineffective assistance and insufficient evidence for conviction and enhancement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Reyos)	Held
1) Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving to exclude eyewitness IDs	IDs were reliable under Ramirez factors; counsel reasonably pursued impeachment at trial instead of a likely futile suppression motion	Counsel should have sought exclusion of unreliable photo IDs (risk of contamination by media exposure)	Counsel not ineffective; IDs admissible under Ramirez and impeachment at trial was reasonable strategy
2) Whether evidence was insufficient to convict or to support Group Crime Enhancement	Eyewitness testimony placed Reyos at scene; evidence that an unidentified female drove, waited, positioned car for rapid exit, and sped off supports inference she aided as getaway driver, satisfying "in concert with two or more persons"	Eyewitnesses unreliable; no independent forensic or possession evidence; only two male robbers—no proof females participated, so enhancement improper	Sufficient evidence for convictions and for enhancement; no plain error; counsel not ineffective for failing to move for directed verdict

State v. Ramirez, 817 P.2d 774 (Utah 1991) (sets five‑factor totality‑of‑circumstances test for admissibility of eyewitness identifications)
State v. Long, 721 P.2d 483 (Utah 1986) (jury cautionary instruction factors for eyewitness ID reliability)
State v. Holgate, 10 P.3d 346 (Utah 2000) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and plain error in submitting charges to the jury)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)