State v. West, 532 P.3d 114

Deborah Jean West was charged with violating a civil stalking injunction that prohibited her from coming within 20 feet of the petitioner (C.L.) after an incident in the community clubhouse library.
The State informed the defense shortly before trial it would offer evidence of two additional post-charge interactions (a potluck and a church foyer encounter) to prove intent/knowledge under Utah R. Evid. 404(b).
The trial court admitted the other-acts evidence over West’s in limine objection; defense counsel’s contemporaneous motion to continue for additional preparation was denied.
A jury convicted West. After trial she filed pro se post‑trial motions and at a sentencing-review hearing she told the court she would represent herself; the court allowed counsel to withdraw after a single exchange and made no Frampton colloquy.
At sentencing (16 months later) the court denied West’s pro se motions and imposed a suspended jail term, fines, and 18 months’ probation. West appealed challenging the evidentiary rulings, the denied continuance, the denial of her post‑trial motions, and the validity of her waiver of counsel at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts (Utah R. Evid. 404(b))	State: other‑acts show intent/knowledge, relevant and admissible	West: evidence was improper propensity/character evidence, unfairly prejudicial	Affirmed — even if admission were erroneous, West failed to show prejudice or a reasonable likelihood of a different verdict
Denial of continuance after 404(b) ruling	State: denial within court’s discretion; no prejudice	West: late disclosure prevented adequate preparation and subpoenas	Affirmed — West did not show how additional time would have produced a more favorable result
Validity of waiver of counsel at sentencing	State: West observed trial proceedings and expressly declined counsel, so waiver was valid	West: no on-the-record colloquy; waiver was not knowing and intelligent	Vacated sentence and remanded — waiver was express but not shown to be knowingly and intelligently made; court failed to conduct adequate inquiry/colloquy
Denial/characterization of pro se post‑trial motions	State: motions were legally frivolous and properly denied	West: motions were wrongly denied and mischaracterized (e.g., as motions to dismiss)	Not reached on merits — remand for resentencing allows motions to be refiled/considered with counsel if desired

State v. Frampton, 737 P.2d 183 (Utah 1987) (articulates Frampton 16-point colloquy and guidance for determining knowing, intelligent waiver of counsel)
State v. Pedockie, 137 P.3d 716 (Utah 2006) (recommends on‑the‑record colloquy; directs de novo review where colloquy absent)
State v. Bozarth, 501 P.3d 116 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (recognizes rare circumstances where waiver may be valid without full colloquy and lists record factors)
State v. Tarrats, 122 P.3d 581 (Utah 2005) (standard of review: abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Bilek, 437 P.3d 544 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (error in admitting 404(b) evidence requires showing of material effect on fairness/outcome)
State v. Ferguson, 250 P.3d 89 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (discusses harmlessness where other properly admitted evidence supports verdict)