State v. Torres-Orellana, 562 P.3d 706

William Torres was convicted by a jury of rape after an incident with his then-girlfriend, "Tiffany"
Post-trial, the district court had concerns about the effectiveness of Torres's trial counsel and appointed new counsel
Torres, through post-trial counsel, moved for a new trial, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to introduce additional text messages that could undermine the complainant's credibility
The district court granted a new trial, finding cumulative errors by trial counsel were prejudicial
The Utah Court of Appeals reversed, finding Torres was not prejudiced under the Strickland standard, and reinstated the conviction
On certiorari, the Utah Supreme Court reviewed whether the correct standard of review was used and if the appellate court erred in rejecting the new trial grant

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Torres)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held (Utah Supreme Court)
Standard of review for new trial orders alleging ineffective counsel	Appeals should use abuse of discretion, deference to district court when it's the same judge as at trial	Apply correctness standard for legal determinations, as established precedent	Embedded legal rulings in new trial orders (incl. ineffective assistance) are reviewed for correctness
Should Strickland prejudice prong be reviewed with deference by appeals court	Prejudice element is fact-intensive; trial judge better positioned for this assessment	Legal conclusion, even on prejudice, should be reviewed for correctness	No deference; correctness standard applies to both Strickland elements
Was Torres prejudiced by failure to introduce additional texts	Full text messages would have undermined victim’s credibility and changed outcome	Evidence at trial, including some texts, SANE nurse and Torres’s admissions, was strong	No prejudice; no reasonable probability outcome would have changed
Should Menzies precedent be overruled regarding standard of review	Menzies wrongly classifies prejudice prong as law-like; should be fact-like	Menzies correctly applies law-like mixed question analysis	Menzies reaffirmed; standard remains: correctness for legal conclusions

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
Menzies v. Galetka, 150 P.3d 480 (Utah 2006) (standard of review for ineffective assistance is correctness, not abuse of discretion)
Gregg v. State, 279 P.3d 396 (Utah 2012) (applying Strickland where counsel’s failure to investigate prejudiced defendant)
State v. Billingsley, 311 P.3d 995 (Utah 2013) (standard of review for new trial motions is abuse of discretion, but legal conclusions reviewed for correctness)