State v. Mendoza
State v. Mendoza, 2025 UT App 140 (Oliver, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to Expert’s testimony or to the State’s reference to Expert’s testimony in closing.
- Because the 23B motion did not provide any information about whether counsel attempted locate Mendoza’s medical records or consult with an expert witness to testify at trial, counsel was not ineffective.
- Practice tip: An affidavit in support of a rule 23B motion is deficient if the declarant does not state they would have been available to testify at trial.