State v. Wyman, 300 P.3d 1285

Wyman pled guilty to theft in the First Case, a third-degree felony, with restitution and no jail time recommended.
During sentencing in the First Case, Wyman committed further mischief against a neighbor’s sprinkler system, leading to the Second Case of theft and criminal mischief.
Two separate cases resulted in sentencing orders: indeterminate zero-to-five-year terms for theft (First Case) and for criminal mischief (Second Case), with consecutive running order.
AP&P recommended restitution and probation in the First Case; later reports and recommendations influenced sentencing, but did not bind the court.
Wyman challenged Prosecutor’s participation at sentencing as ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming conflict of interest due to personal farmer ties.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding there was no actual conflict and defense counsel’s performance was not deficient.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there an actual conflict of interest by the Prosecutor?	Wyman claimed Prosecutor’s farming ties created a conflict.	Wyman argued Prosecutor’s conflict required objection at sentencing.	No actual conflict existed.
Did defense counsel's failure to object amount to ineffective assistance?	Counsel should have objected to Prosecutor’s participation.	Objection would be futile absent a conflict; performance not deficient.	No deficient performance; ineffective assistance not established.
Did the potential conflict affect the sentencing outcome?	Consecutive sentences were influenced by Prosecutor's stance.	Sentence decisions were legally sound and not tainted by conflict.	Court did not find conflict to affect sentencing legality.
Did AP&P recommendations bindingly constrain sentencing?	AP&P's recommendations should direct sentencing.	AP&P recommendations are advisory and not controlling.	Sentence not bound by AP&P recommendations.

State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 (Utah) (ineffective assistance standard; review for correctness)
State v. Hales, 2007 UT 14 (Utah) (ineffective assistance framework components)
State v. King, 2012 UT App 203 (Utah App. 2012) (two-part Strickland test on appeal)
State v. Whittle, 1999 UT 96 (Utah) (futility of objections; performance review standard)
State v. Kelley, 2000 UT 41 (Utah) (deficient performance requires potential prejudice)
State v. Moreau, 2011 UT App 109 (Utah App. 2011) (AP&P recommendations not binding on court)
State v. Balfour, 2008 UT App 410 (Utah App. 2008) (role of evidence and prosecutorial participation considerations)