State v. Samora

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, reviews a criminal case involving a challenge to a conviction and issues concerning eyewitness identification evidence and post-conviction proceedings. The court addresses whether the asserted facts and supporting materials warranted relief and affirms the lower court's ruling.

Holdings

1. A Rule 23B motion must allege and support the facts necessary to establish the asserted ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim; the appellate court need not grant a remand based on conclusory allegations or facts insufficient to demonstrate deficient performance and resulting prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. What factual showing must a criminal appellant make in a motion under Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 23B seeking a remand to develop an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim?
2. Whether the court of appeals properly denied Samora's rule 23B motion.

Disposition

affirmed