State v. Jaramillo

Decision Date07 April 2016
Docket NumberNo. 20130988–CA.,20130988–CA.
Citation2016 UT App 70,372 P.3d 34
PartiesSTATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Paul Raymond JARAMILLO, Appellant.
CourtUtah Court of Appeals

David M. Corbett, South Jordan, and Craig L. Pankratz, Tooele, for Appellant.

Sean D. Reyes and Kris C. Leonard, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.

Judge J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. authored this Opinion, in which Judge MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN and Justice JOHN A. PEARCE concurred.1

Opinion

VOROS

, Judge:

¶ 1 Paul Raymond Jaramillo appeals his convictions on multiple felony counts arising from a crime spree in Salt Lake City and Centerville. During the spree, he entered a young woman's car, held a knife to her throat, and ordered her to drive him home; attempted to rob a convenience store customer; broke into a fast food restaurant; and jumped on a vehicle in an apparent attempt to steal it. His principal claim on appeal is that his trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance when she did not introduce expert testimony that he might have ingested a large amount of anti-anxiety medication some time before these events. He also challenges his sentence of 15 years to life for aggravated kidnapping. We affirm on the first issue and remand for further proceedings on the second.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 Around midnight on April 20, 2010, a grocery store clerk finished her shift in downtown Salt Lake City. As she left the parking lot, Jaramillo flagged her down. Thinking he needed to ask her a question, the clerk slowed her car. Jaramillo opened the passenger-side car door and jumped in. He asked her to “give him a ride just down the street.” He said that [h]is friends had left him” and that he “was very tired and didn't want to walk anymore.”

¶ 3 The clerk agreed to drive him down the street, but once they left the parking lot, Jaramillo demanded that she drive him to Ogden. When she refused, he cupped one hand over her mouth and held a knife to her throat with the other. She began driving, but told him she could not drive with his hand on her mouth and a knife at her throat. He lowered the knife, but kept his hand on the back of her neck until they reached the freeway. At the freeway on-ramp, Jaramillo made her pull over and told her that he would drive. She refused, telling him her car was “temperamental.” He eventually allowed her to keep driving but told her not to look in the rearview mirror, speed, or do anything suspicious. He asked her questions about her car and its sound system, and whether she had any money, credit cards, or bank accounts. He rummaged through her car, taking and lighting a cigarette, and donning a hooded sweatshirt he found in the car.

¶ 4 The clerk told Jaramillo that she had to stop for gas. He let her stop in Centerville. But he warned her not to “do anything stupid,” because he was not afraid to stab her. She pulled the car into a gas station and stopped at a fuel pump. Jaramillo demanded that she give him her money and cell phone. She gave him nine dollars but told him her cell phone was dead. When he responded that she could do this “the easy way or the hard way,” she surrendered the phone. They both got out of the car and, as soon as he walked toward the convenience store, she ran across the parking lot and hid.

¶ 5 Inside the convenience store, a customer was buying a snack. Jaramillo walked into the store, said he had a gun, and demanded the clerk's car key. The clerk pushed Jaramillo away. Jaramillo then turned his attention to the customer, demanding his car key. Before the customer could answer, Jaramillo hit him. The two struggled until the customer pushed Jaramillo out the door. Jaramillo ran away and the customer went to his SUV in the parking lot.

¶ 6 Jaramillo ran across the parking lot to a closed fast food restaurant and pounded on the drive-through window. When no one responded, he began pulling on the locked doors. An employee called the police just before Jaramillo broke the lock and walked in. Jaramillo demanded money from one of the employees. When the employee ran out the door, Jaramillo followed him.

¶ 7 In the parking lot, Jaramillo again encountered the convenience store customer, now sitting in his idling SUV. Jaramillo stood in front of the SUV and demanded the car key. When the customer refused, Jaramillo jumped onto the hood of the SUV. The customer thought he could get Jaramillo off of his SUV if he drove forward slowly and then hit the brakes. When the customer tried this, Jaramillo fell, and the SUV ran over him. When the police arrived, Jaramillo was unconscious, his legs under the SUV. Paramedics life-flighted him to the hospital.

¶ 8 Jaramillo was charged with multiple felony counts. The trial court appointed a defense attorney. After a preliminary hearing and some discovery, Jaramillo requested and received a new attorney. Jarmillo did this two more times, and each time the court appointed new attorneys. Finally, trial counsel entered her appearance. Although Jaramillo filed multiple pre-trial complaints about trial counsel's representation, in the end he cooperated with her, and she represented him throughout the remaining trial court proceedings.

¶ 9 Trial counsel did not present an opening statement or any evidence to the jury. Counsel relied on cross-examination to attack the adequacy of the police investigation and advance a voluntary intoxication defense. Counsel established that witnesses told police that Jaramillo demonstrated “bizarre” and erratic behavior. The court also allowed counsel to question a police officer about witness statements that Jaramillo “might be high on drugs” and that he might be drunk or something” for the limited purpose of calling into question the adequacy of the police investigation. The court did not allow counsel to present to the jury Jaramillo's claim that he ingested 15 Xanax2 pills the day of the attack.

¶ 10 The jury convicted Jaramillo of two counts of aggravated robbery, both first-degree felonies; aggravated kidnapping, a first-degree felony; aggravated assault, a third-degree felony; possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, a third-degree felony; and criminal trespass, a class B misdemeanor. He appeals.

ISSUES ON APPEAL

¶ 11 Jaramillo contends that his trial counsel “rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to investigate and present clearly exculpatory evidence” showing that Jaramillo had “ingested a mind-altering chemical” before committing the crimes. He also requests that we remand this case to the trial court under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure

to create a record to support his ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

¶ 12 Jaramillo also contends that in sentencing him to a term of fifteen years to life, the court did not consider proportionality or rehabilitation as required by the aggravated kidnapping statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 76–5–302

(LexisNexis Supp. 2013).

ANALYSIS
I. Rule 23B
Remand

¶ 13 Jaramillo seeks remand to the trial court to create a record supporting his claim that he received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel. He contends that trial counsel failed to “investigate the facts” and present evidence to support a voluntary intoxication defense.

¶ 14 Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 23B

“provides a mechanism for criminal defendants to supplement the record with facts that are necessary for a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel but which do not appear in the record.” State v. Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 17, ––– P.3d ––– –. A rule 23B motion “shall be available only upon a nonspeculative allegation of facts, not fully appearing in the record on appeal, which, if true, could support a determination that counsel was ineffective.” Utah R. App. P. 23B(a).

¶ 15 “There are four basic requirements for obtaining a 23B remand. First, the motion must be supported by affidavits setting forth facts that are not contained in the existing record.” State v. Norton, 2015 UT App 263, ¶ 6, 361 P.3d 719

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Second, the defendant must provide allegations of fact that are not speculative.” Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 19, ––– P.3d ––– –. “The third and fourth elements of the ... test come from the rule's mandate that the alleged facts could support a determination that counsel was ineffective.” Id. ¶ 20 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “To succeed on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a defendant must ‘establish that his counsel rendered a deficient performance in some demonstrable manner, which performance fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment.’ Norton, 2015 UT App 263, ¶ 7, 361 P.3d 719 (quoting Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 15, – ––P.3d ––––). The defendant must also “show that counsel's performance prejudiced [him], meaning that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Griffin, 2015 UT 18, ¶ 15, ––– P.3d ––– – (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶ 16 Voluntary intoxication does not serve as a defense to a criminal charge unless the intoxication “negates the existence of the mental state which is an element of the offense.” Utah Code Ann. § 76–2–306 (LexisNexis 2012)

. Thus, “to prevail on a voluntary intoxication defense, [Jaramillo's] state of intoxication must have deprived him of the capacity to form the mental state necessary” for the charged offenses. See Honie v. State, 2014 UT 19, ¶ 49, 342 P.3d 182

. “It is not enough to merely present evidence showing that the defendant [was intoxicated].” Id. ¶ 50. “Rather, to establish a viable voluntary intoxication defense, the defendant must point to evidence showing that he was so intoxicated that he was incapable of forming the requisite mental state for the crimes committed.” Id.

¶ 17 In support of his rule 23B

motion, Jaramillo alleges that during trial, counsel “relied almost entirely on a voluntary intoxication defense,” but while counsel “established that his conduct...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Norton
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 3 Mayo 2018
    ...all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion." State v. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70, ¶ 32, 372 P.3d 34 (quotation simplified). In reviewing the sentence imposed, we will "presume that the sentencing court made al......
  • State v. Norton
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • 13 Julio 2020
    ...The court of appeals has only once concluded that LeBeau warranted a holding that a district court abused its discretion. See State v. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70, ¶ 44, 372 P.3d 34. In every other case, the court of appeals either declined to conduct the LeBeau interests of justice analysis......
  • State v. Coombs
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 10 Enero 2019
    ...the sentencing court must conduct an explicit interests-of-justice analysis, Coombs cites State v. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70, ¶ 39, 372 P.3d 34. As we explained in State v. Alvarez , 2017 UT App 145, 402 P.3d 191, Jaramillo’s rationale does not apply to defendants who were sentenced after ......
  • State v. Lopez-Gonzalez
    • United States
    • Utah Court of Appeals
    • 24 Enero 2020
    ...police report, however, is "not a part of the record before this court, and we do not consider new evidence on appeal." See State v. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70, ¶ 27, 372 P.3d 34 (cleaned up). Indeed, "a defendant cannot bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal without poi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT