CHRISTIANSEN, Judge:

¶1 Defendant Joshua appeals a first degree felony. (2008). argues Pursuant rule Rules Procedure, moved for theory jointly a particular, contends closing unfairly placed Williams, making him appear if asserts agreed *2 codefendant that neither would testify trial, Williams did not expect the codefendant’s Williams. Williams also seems contend that, despite charged the offenses the same alleged actions, the of the included of unlawful detention is proof that Williams by the In ruling motion new the trial court determined that the found the credible the testimony implicated

Williams more strongly than the Further, the trial court determined that Williams had been given adequate opportunity cross examine all of the witnesses trial court also noted Williams elected after had been advised of his right do so.

¶4 Williams did timely the trial his trial from the therefore waived his right do so. Utah ‐ 1(4)(b) (2008) (“A defendant’s right waived motion made least five days before trial.”). event, trial discretion in denying his new trial because prejudice Williams. generally R. Crim. P. 24(a) (“The may grant new in interest any error impropriety substantial adverse effect upon rights party.”); Menzies (“The decision new trial pursuant Rule Procedure matter within [, and] will reverse ruling absent clear abuse discretion.” omitted)). ¶5 Although encouragement find that client may impacted jury, Williams has has demonstrated him. Specifically, evidence produced victim owed money, owned drove car codefendant took victim home. identified no evidence excluded been separately, nor he identified made could been made Also, codefendant’s *3 does demonstrate have found less separately. ¶6 Moreover, in for because, even under Code section 77 ‐ 8a ‐ 1 and case law interpreting statute, would have received better outcome See Ann. 77 ‐ ‐ 1(4)(a) (“If finds [that] defendant . . . joinder . . . defendants indictment or information or together, court shall severance defendants, or provide other relief as requires.”); v. O’Brien , 721 P.2d 898 (Utah 1986) (instructing “grant severance when doubt as prejudice”); Telford , 940 P.2d 525 ‐ Ct. App. (same). Prejudice occurs where “joint defenses [are] inconsistent or obstruct or impede each other.” O’Brien , 721 P.2d at 898; accord Telford , 940 P.2d 525 ‐ 26. “Antagonistic defenses alone are sufficient to require separate Rather, severance required defenses conflict point being irreconcilable and mutually exclusive.” Telford , P.2d (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, “hostility between co fact one defendant attempts cast blame on co defendant alone sufficient reason require co trials.” O ʹ Brien P.2d 899. though Williams’s and defenses were antagonistic “the point irreconcilable mutually exclusive.” Telford , omitted). Williams’s codefendent’s strategic approach cooperated each other point even agreeing either against other. Both defenses, including closing argument, focused proving believable actions were voluntary. reject defense believe defense, vice versa. id. (concluding erred by failing “the defenses were mutually exclusive,” is, “the reject one defense believe other”). thus conclude *4 Because prejudiced we need reach ineffective assistance counsel claim counsel’s failure Archuleta Galetka ¶ (“To prevail [on an ineffective assistance claim], must show, first, rendered deficient performance some demonstrable manner, performance fell below objective standard reasonable professional judgment and, second, performance defendant.” (internal omitted)). ineffective seeking codefendant, him. ¶9 Accordingly,

____________________________________

Michele M. Christiansen, Judge

¶10 WE CONCUR:

____________________________________ Frederic Voros Jr.,

Associate Presiding Judge

____________________________________

Stephen Judge