State v. Perkins
State v. Perkins, 2024 UT App 101 (Orme, J.)
Criminal
Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence and driving on a suspended license. He appealed. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- Counsel was not ineffective because any motion to suppress would have been futile, failing both prongs of the Strickland analysis.
- The trial court did not commit reversible error when it did not engage in a colloquy with Defendant on self-representation or substitution of counsel.
- Practice tip: A defendant must clearly and unequivocally communicate to the trial court that she wants to exercise her right of self-representation to preserve that right.