The Appellate Group

State v. Perez

State v. Perez, 2026 UT App 92 (Orme, J.)

Criminal Law

The Utah Court of Appeals held:

(1) Trial counsel does not provide ineffective assistance by choosing not to challenge prospective jurors for cause who initially indicate a potential bias, if the jurors subsequently reaffirm their commitment to follow the court’s instructions and remain impartial.

(2) The district court complies with its statutory duties under Utah Code § 77- 18-103, even if it proceeds to sentencing without entering explicit findings regarding an alleged inaccuracy in the PSI, as long as the court did not affirmatively find an inaccuracy existed. In cases where it would be reasonable to assume both parties could be right, an appellate court may infer the district court found the report was not technically inaccurate.

Practice tip:

If something is missing from AP&P’s presentence report, such as any information from the defendant regarding mitigating factors, trial counsel should read or submit the missing information to the court during the sentencing hearing and to argue how the missing information would alter the sentencing recommendation.

Read the full court opinion