UT: Def counsel failed to provide effective assistance in getting 4A issue before court for resolution

Defense counsel failed to adequately defend the accused on his motion to suppress by not briefing and failing to get it before the court for a hearing, essentially abandoning the client. The issue was left cloudy enough in the record that the court can’t say that defendant would win or lose, so a hearing is required. State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 2017 UT App 13, 2017 Utah App. LEXIS 13 (Jan. 20, 2017):

[*P76] The arguments of both parties appear to have some merit, and we would ordinarily go on to resolve the issue based on the facts in the record. But the concerns we have raised about the representation that Martinez-Castellanos received during the motion to suppress—essentially the entire absence of representation—make us reluctant to resolve the issue here, particularly because it was so poorly developed in the trial court. Moreover, the merits of the issue do not so clearly favor either side that we are persuaded that additional proceedings with competent counsel actually representing Martinez-Castellanos could not have a material impact on the result. The trial court itself raised questions about the potential significance of the trooper’s trial testimony on its earlier decision to deny the motion to suppress, and that question was never addressed on the merits below. Rather, Martinez-Castellanos was denied the effective assistance of counsel throughout the suppression motion process (and was not represented at all during the post-trial proceedings on the issue), with the result that a plausible motion to suppress, potentially affected by unexplored developments during the trial itself, was resolved against him in an essentially one-sided proceeding. In sum, there was no adversarial process during this portion of the trial.