State v. Uptain

541 P.3d 310

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.William Allen UPTAIN, Appellant.

No. 20210766-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed December 14, 2023

Wendy Brown, Salt Lake City, Debra M. Nelson, and Benjamin Miller, Attorneys for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City and Michael D. Palumbo, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge David N. Mortensen authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan D. Tenney concurred.

Opinion

MORTENSEN, Judge:

¶1 A seventy-two-year-old widow living alone was subjected to a late-night home invasion and assault. Aware that William Allen Uptain, a known drug addict, lived nearby, law enforcement officers developed a hunch that Uptain might be the perpetrator. Sitting down for an interview with Uptain was easy enough—he was already in jail on drug charges. After isolating Uptain in a booking area of the jail, an officer, without providing Miranda warnings, see Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), started interviewing Uptain, mainly about drug activity in the community. The officer then changed gears and brought up the home invasion case, to which Uptain spontaneously confessed. Uptain was then given Miranda warnings and confirmed his confession. Now having been convicted, Uptain claims that his trial counsel (Counsel) was ineffective for failing to move to suppress his confessions and that he was prejudiced by this failure as the State had no other evidence of his guilt. We agree with Uptain's claims, vacate his convictions, and remand the case for such proceedings as may now be appropriate.

BACKGROUND

¶2 Police in Green River, Utah, had an unsolved home invasion burglary. One February night, an unidentified man broke into the home of a seventy-two-year-old widow (Vicky¹ ), who lived there alone. Vicky heard her dog barking, and she looked up to see a man standing at her kitchen door. The man "had on a full face ski mask, dark in color, a black sweater, khaki colored pants, and cloth-covered gloves." The invader ran toward her, grabbed her by the hair, yanked her out of her chair, and grasped her by the neck, warning, "Don't scream. All I want is money." After saying that she had none, he shoved her back into the chair and exited toward the kitchen door. Vicky ran after him because she had seen him take her purse. She grabbed his sweater in an attempt to stop him, at which point he turned around and slugged Vicky in the chest. Vicky fell to the floor but got up and ran after him again as he fled out the door. She went to her back porch to determine in which direction he went, but it was too dark. She returned inside and called the police.

¶3 After spending several minutes gathering information from Vicky, the responding officer drove around the surrounding streets looking for a suspect. Another officer joined in the search, but they located no one. The officers gathered no fingerprints, fiber evidence, or other forensic evidence. They were unable to find any footprints because the ground was too hard for an impression to be left. And there was no video evidence available from surrounding residences.

¶4 The police did have some suspicions about Uptain being involved in the home invasion. But when asked about Uptain, Vicky responded that she did not know him. Still, Uptain's name, among others, was "floated as a possible suspect in the home invasion burglary," but the police did not "have any specific evidence tying him" to the crime.

¶5 Uptain had some outstanding warrants that had "nothing to do" with the home invasion. Police arrested Uptain on these warrants on March 4.

¶6 On March 15, a local drug task force agent (Detective) interviewed Uptain in the booking area of the jail. Detective was aware of the home invasion burglary through "normal conversation with other detectives and with [his] supervisors requesting ... follow-up with investigations." He also knew that Uptain "lived in very close proximity" to Vicky.

¶7 Detective and another officer were present for the interview with Uptain. Detective said he wanted to talk to Uptain about drug activity in Green River, including seeking information about users and dealers. Detective told Uptain that Green River had a serious drug problem that he was trying to address. Uptain, apparently offering his assistance, asked Detective, "What do you need?" Detective responded,

Whatever you can freaking give me, man. ... [Y]ou got nobody in [this jail]. You got nobody anywhere. ... [T]hat's why we came out here. ... [The other inmates] don't know why you're out here. They know you got court tomorrow is what we were talking about .... So, yeah, don't worry about that. I'm not going to burn you .

(Emphasis added.) As they continued talking about various aspects of the drug activity in the area, Detective stated,

Well, I appreciate honesty. And really you could be honest with me and tell me about other stuff, even other stuff you did .... I'm not going to hang you up over that . Like, if there's something serious, we'd work through it. Pretty much everything else, I'm not worried about.

(Emphasis added.) They continued to talk about Uptain's plans for pursuing drug treatment when he got out of jail and how he might assist Detective in addressing the drug problem in the area. At this point, Detective's phone rang. After completing the call, Detective returned to the interview but pivoted to the home invasion:

Detective : So I've got one thing that I'm hoping that you can help me out with. Happened the middle of last month ... middle of February. Do you know [Vicky]?

Uptain : Who? ... A guy?

Detective : No. ... [She lives] kind of through the field from you guys, going north.

Uptain : No, I don't know her, but, yeah ....

Detective : [Oh] you know what I'm talking about?

Uptain : Yeah. And I regret it so much, man. I know I need help.

Detective : Okay. So that was—

Uptain : I was waiting for you to ask me about that.

....

Detective : So let me tell you this. ... I didn't even ask you and you were out with it. It's perfectly clear where your mind is right now and it's probably the clearest it's been in a while.

....

So I got my hands tied a little bit on this, and so I will have to bring this ... up my chain of command. ... But I'm hoping that it will just work out the best way it can. ...

So before you tell me anything, we'll do this, just so ... you're legit. Okay. You have the right to remain silent ....

¶8 After Detective completed the Miranda recitation, Uptain confirmed that he understood the corresponding rights and agreed to "keep talking" to Detective. Uptain then shared the details of the home invasion burglary.

¶9 Uptain was charged with robbery and aggravated burglary. He filed a pro se motion to dismiss, arguing that there was no evidence apart from his confession to support a conviction. He also argued—albeit somewhat nebulously and citing the Fourth Amendment instead of the Fifth Amendment—for a "suppression hearing." He filed a second similar motion a few days later. The district court refused to rule on the pro se motion because Uptain, who was represented by legal counsel, had not obtained Counsel's endorsement.

¶10 Uptain then filed two more pro se motions seeking "new and sufficient counsel," arguing, as relevant here, that Counsel had not sought an evidentiary hearing or spoken to him about pretrial motions. The court denied the first motion for new counsel because Uptain "provided no legal conflict nor suggested that the situation could not be resolved by additional meetings with [Counsel] prior [to] trial." And Uptain, on the morning of trial, withdrew his second motion.

¶11 During the trial, Vicky, the responding officer, and Detective testified to the events described above. During Detective's testimony, the State played the portion of Uptain's interview in which he confessed to the home invasion. During the cross-examination of Detective, Counsel played additional portions of the interview leading up to Uptain's confession.

¶12 In closing, Counsel argued that the case boiled down to Uptain's confession to the home invasion. But Counsel pointed out that the information in Uptain's responses was "rambling" and possibly inaccurate. Counsel also pointed out that Uptain made the incriminating statements only after Detective told him that he wouldn't "hang him up" and that Uptain was "saying whatever" he needed to say to get into drug treatment.

¶13 The jury convicted Uptain as charged, and he was sentenced to prison. Uptain appeals.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶14 The sole issue presented is whether Counsel rendered ineffective assistance when he did not file a motion to suppress Uptain's confession. "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Guerro , 2021 UT App 136, ¶ 25, 502 P.3d 338 (cleaned up), cert. denied , 525 P.3d 1254 (Utah 2022).

ANALYSIS

¶15 Uptain argues that his constitutional right to effective assistance was violated when Counsel failed to file a motion to suppress his confession. He asserts that if Counsel had filed a motion to suppress, all his statements—both before and after Miranda warnings—would have been suppressed. More specifically, he contends that his "pre- Miranda statements should have been suppressed, because they were obtained absent the required warnings regarding [his] Fifth Amendment rights" and that "his post- Miranda statements should have been suppressed, because they were the result of an impermissible two-step interrogation."

I. The Questioning of Uptain Required Miranda Warnings

¶16 In Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court gave "concrete constitutional guidelines for law enforcement agencies and courts to follow" when conducting custodial interrogations. Id. at 441–42, 86 S.Ct. 1602. "Those guidelines...