State v. Franco
Court of Appeals of Utah
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED MEMORANDUM DECISION 1
ROTH, Judge:
T1 Richard Paul Franco makes two challenges to his conviction for forcible sexual abuse. First, he contends that the trial court committed reversible error requiring remand when it did not inquire into the need for substitution of counsel after Franco expressed dissatisfaction with his attorney's performance. Franco also claims that trial counsel's failure to present Franco's desired theory of the case resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel entitling him to a new trial. We affirm.
I. Duty to Inquire
T 2 Franco asserts that the trial court had a…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- State v. WoodUtah Supreme Court · 1982
- State v. ClarkUtah Supreme Court · 2004
- State v. OttUtah Supreme Court · 2010
- State v. TennysonCourt of Appeals of Utah · 1993
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. LeeCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2014
- State v. CurtisCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2013
- State v. RiveraCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2022
- State v. MooreCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2012
- State v. HallCourt of Appeals of Utah · 2013
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.