When will Utah appellate courts grant rule 23B remands for ineffective assistance claims? State v. Rinehart Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Rinehart provided important guidance on when appellate courts will grant rule 23B remands for ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on evidence outside the trial record.

Background and Facts
Rinehart pleaded guilty to burglary and appealed the restitution order. At the restitution hearing, she claimed items she pawned on the day of the burglary were her own property, not stolen goods. The trial court found her testimony not credible and awarded $67,710 in restitution. Rinehart filed a rule 23B motion seeking remand to develop evidence on three ineffective assistance claims: counsel’s failure to investigate evidence about the timing of her pawn shop transaction, failure to locate a witness who allegedly saw the victim trying to sell stolen items, and failure to present evidence of her health conditions affecting her ability to pay restitution.

Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Rinehart’s rule 23B motion contained nonspeculative allegations that could support a finding of ineffective assistance under the two-prong Strickland test requiring both deficient performance and prejudice.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court denied the motion, explaining that rule 23B remands require “nonspeculative allegation of facts, not fully appearing in the record on appeal, which, if true, could support a determination that counsel was ineffective.” The court found all three claims speculative. Regarding the pawn shop timing, even if the transaction occurred before the burglary, the victim had identified the pawned items as her property, including a single earring whose mate remained in her possession. The potential witness testimony was insufficient to demonstrate the items offered for sale were the same ones stolen. Finally, the trial court had already considered Rinehart’s ability to work and pay restitution over time.

Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that rule 23B motions must do more than raise theoretical possibilities of ineffectiveness. Practitioners must present concrete, nonspeculative facts that could realistically establish both deficient performance and resulting prejudice. Mere speculation about alternative trial strategies or potential evidence will not suffice for obtaining a remand.