Snyder v. State

Citations: 2015 UT App 37; 346 P.3d 669; 780 Utah Adv. Rep. 43; 2015 Utah App. LEXIS 37; 2015 WL 737191Docket: 20140376-CA

Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; February 20, 2015; Utah; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Barry J. Snyder appeals the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the State of Utah, which dismissed his petition for postconviction relief. The court affirms the trial court's decision, reviewing the summary judgment for correctness and noting that summary judgment is appropriate when there are no disputed material facts and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Snyder claimed ineffective assistance of counsel regarding his guilty plea but failed to present specific facts to support his assertion, which would preclude summary judgment. 

Snyder pleaded guilty to sexual exploitation of a minor, leading to the dismissal of nine additional charges, and later withdrew his appeal after sentencing. His petition for postconviction relief raised claims that were either waived by his guilty plea or not preserved for appeal. A guilty plea typically admits all essential elements of the crime and waives nonjurisdictional defects, including constitutional violations prior to the plea. 

To establish ineffective assistance, Snyder must demonstrate both deficient performance by counsel and resultant prejudice. He argued that his counsel did not ensure the correction of the pre-sentence report, but this issue could have been raised in his direct appeal, which he voluntarily withdrew. Consequently, any claims related to the pre-sentence report or sentencing are barred under Utah law. Snyder did not provide sufficient facts to establish that his counsel's performance was deficient or that he was prejudiced as a result.

Snyder claims ineffective assistance of counsel for not moving to withdraw his guilty plea after he provided legal authority he believed would support a defense. Despite initially expressing disagreements with his counsel in a letter to the trial court, Snyder later indicated that these issues were resolved and that proceeding with sentencing was preferable. The record reflects that Snyder waived the right to file a motion to withdraw his plea, thereby precluding him from later arguing that counsel was ineffective for not pursuing this motion.

Snyder also alleges that counsel failed to investigate evidence and did not dedicate sufficient time to his case. However, appellate courts typically do not consider the amount of time spent by counsel as a measure of effectiveness. Snyder's claims lack specific factual support and are largely conclusory. The record indicates that counsel informed Snyder that the evidence against him was substantial, suggesting that the decision to enter a plea bargain, which led to the dismissal of nine out of ten charges, was a strategic choice.

Ultimately, Snyder has not demonstrated error in the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment and dismiss his petition. Furthermore, Snyder's assertion that the trial court erred by not appointing counsel for his appeal is unfounded, as he is not entitled to counsel in postconviction proceedings.