Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Galindo

Court of Appeals of Utah

October 18, 2019

State of Utah, Appellee,
v.
Patrick Bobby Galindo Jr., Appellant.

          Second District Court, Ogden Department The Honorable Ernest W. Jones No. 161901398

          Cherise M. Bacalski and Emily Adams, Attorneys for Appellant

          Sean D. Reyes and Christopher D. Ballard, Attorneys for Appellee

          Judge Jill M. Pohlman authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Diana Hagen concurred.

          OPINION

          POHLMAN, JUDGE

         ¶1 Patrick Bobby Galindo Jr. appeals his conviction of attempted murder. Galindo argues that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance by stipulating to Galindo's competency to stand trial and by failing to talk to one of the psychologists evaluating that competency. He also seeks remand under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure for additional findings related to his trial counsel's failure to talk to the psychologist. We deny his motion to remand and affirm.

         BACKGROUND

         ¶2 After Galindo shot a man four times, the State charged him with attempted murder and possession of a firearm by a restricted person.[1] Before trial, Galindo's trial counsel petitioned the district court to evaluate Galindo's mental competency, requesting that the court order two experts to examine Galindo. In support of the petition, trial counsel stated, "In conversing with Mr. Galindo, in the past several court hearings, Mr. Galindo does not appear to be able to comprehend what is going on. Or make rational decisions regarding this case." The court granted the petition.

         ¶3 The court appointed two psychologists-Dr. Hawks and Dr. Wilkinson-to examine Galindo. Both ultimately concluded that Galindo was competent to stand trial. Dr. Hawks reported that he was not able to speak with Galindo's trial counsel as part of his evaluation.

         ¶4 After receiving the two psychologists' reports, the court held a competency hearing. Galindo's trial counsel stipulated to Galindo's competency in the following exchange:

The Court: . . . I have two reports, one from Dr. Wilkinson and one from Dr. Hawks. I believe both of those indicate that Mr. Galindo was competent to proceed; is that how you read that?
[Trial counsel]: That's the way I read it as well. I didn't personally talk to . . . Dr. Hawks . . . and confirm that as well.
The Court: Okay.
[Trial counsel]: So given that, I think we're willing to stipulate to competen[cy] based ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.