State v. Waterfield, 322 P.3d 1194

Waterfield appealed the district court’s remand ruling regarding objections to the PSI Report after this court’s Waterfield I decision.
On remand, Waterfield was initially represented, then proceeded pro se after the court denied substitution of counsel.
The district court granted Waterfield’s pro se status, addressed PSI objections at an evidentiary hearing, and amended the PSI in some respects.
Waterfield asserted multiple issues: dissatisfaction with counsel, waiver of counsel, objections to the PSI, and the sentence’s legality based on incomplete information.
The court ultimately affirmed, holding no Sixth Amendment violation, no reversible error in the waiver colloquy, and no error in resolving PSI objections or in the sentence.
Key legal framework included Pursifell inquiries, Lovell guidance on counsel dissatisfaction, and the statute requiring on-record determinations of accuracy and relevance of PSI information.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to counsel at PSI hearing	Waterfield contends he was denied Sixth Amendment counsel.	Wa terfield had no right to counsel at this post-sentencing PSI hearing.	Right to counsel may apply; court assumed waiver but affirmed harmless error.
Duty to inquire into dissatisfaction with counsel	District court failed Pursifell inquiry into Waterfield’s dissatisfaction.	No irreconcilable conflict or harm shown; inquiry was harmless.	Failure to inquire was harmless error; no Sixth Amendment violation.
Waiver of the right to counsel	Waiver not knowing or intelligent because colloquy deviated from Frampton.	Colloquy adequate; Waterfield voluntarily and knowingly waived after considering options.	Colloquy sufficient; waiver was voluntary and knowingly made.
Resolution of Waterfield’s PSI objections	District court failed to determine accuracy/relevance of some PSI items.	Court thoroughly reviewed objections; relative errors not shown to affect substantial rights.	No reversible error; district court properly addressed PSI objections under statute.
Legality of the sentence	Sentence illegal due to incomplete PSI lacking screening/assessments.	PSI did not omit required findings; no basis shown to invalidate sentence.	Sentence affirmed; no omission of required findings demonstrated.

Waterfield v. Waterfield, 2011 UT App 27, 248 P.3d 57 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (remand for PSI objections; procedural history guiding current analysis)
State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (trial court must investigate objections to counsel for sixth amendment protection)
State v. Vessey, 967 P.2d 960 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (failure to investigate request for new counsel can be per se error)
State v. Lovell, 984 P.2d 382 (Utah 1999) (colloquy not mandated; harmless error if no irreconcilable conflict shown)
State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) (colloquy guidance as a non-mandatory model to ensure knowing waiver)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (U.S. 1973) (due process may require counsel in probation revocation under certain circumstances)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1975) (colloquy to ensure knowing self-representation)
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1967) (right to counsel at critical stages where incarceration is possible)