State v. Calata
State v. Calata, 2022 UT App 127 (Pohlman, J.)
After pleading guilty to failure to stop at command of police, Calata challenged the restitution order requiring him to pay for damages to the troopers’ patrol cars during a high-speed chase. On appeal, Calata brings claims of ineffective assistance of counsel claim and argues the district court erred in not calculating court-ordered restitution. The Utah Court of Appeals rejected Calata’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims but reversed and remanded on the court-ordered restitution issue, holding:
- Though the district court calculated complete restitution appropriately, the district court erred in not calculating court-ordered restitution because section 77-38a-302(2) requires courts to “determine complete restitution and court-ordered restitution.”
- Appellate Practice Point: Appellate courts are unlikely to entertain ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on legal arguments that, though palpable, are not clearly supported by the existing statutes and case law.