State v. Lopez-Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 24 January 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 20180633-CA,20180633-CA |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Israel LOPEZ-GONZALEZ, Appellant. |
Samuel A. Goble, Salt Lake City, and Erin E. Byington, Logan, Attorneys for Appellant
Sean D. Reyes, Salt Lake City, and Tera J. Peterson, Attorneys for Appellee
Opinion
¶1 Israel Lopez-Gonzalez confessed to a detective and then testified at trial that he took actions against the victim (Victim) to "teach him a lesson" after Victim shortchanged him. Lopez-Gonzalez admitted that he struck and hurt Victim with a handgun, told Victim that he "wasn’t going anywhere," took Victim’s clothing, fired a shot into the ground, and abandoned Victim on a dirt road. These admissions confirmed many of the same facts that other witnesses testified to at trial. A jury convicted Lopez-Gonzalez of aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. He appeals, raising several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm.
¶2 In June 2017, Lopez-Gonzalez lent money to a woman (Wife) for her husband’s (Husband) bail. Lopez-Gonzalez agreed to the loan because Husband used to sell him marijuana. Wife, Lopez-Gonzalez, and another friend (Friend) went together and bailed Husband out of jail in Brigham City, Utah. After Husband’s release, the group decided to buy methamphetamine in Ogden, Utah. Once there, they met up with Victim, who had a contact for buying drugs. Lopez-Gonzalez gave Victim around $390 to make the purchase. Victim and Friend left the others to make the deal. While they were away, and unbeknownst to Friend, Victim pocketed some of the money, hiding $200 in his underwear.
¶3 When Friend and Victim rejoined the others, Victim told Lopez-Gonzalez that they "couldn’t get the drugs" and that some of the money was "missing." In response, Lopez-Gonzalez "got really mad" and yelled at Victim. Wife and Husband got in the front of Wife’s car, and Lopez-Gonzalez, Victim, and Friend got in the back. Lopez-Gonzalez then told Wife to drive them to Tremonton, Utah.
¶4 While on the way, Lopez-Gonzalez pulled out his handgun and hit Victim a number of times in the head with his fist or the gun. He demanded the return of the missing money and threatened to shoot Victim and "blow off [his] balls." Lopez-Gonzalez also warned Victim not to move. When Wife and Husband looked into the back seat, Victim was "bleeding out of his eye." Victim called his aunt on the phone and asked her for money. Victim’s phone was then taken from him.
¶5 When the group neared Tremonton, Lopez-Gonzalez had Wife stop at a dirt road. Friend left and went home. Meanwhile, Lopez-Gonzalez walked Victim at gunpoint up the dirt road and repeatedly asked, "[W]here’s the money?" Lopez-Gonzalez then ordered Victim to take off his pants, shoes, and socks and to lie face down on the ground. As Victim removed his clothes, Lopez-Gonzalez temporarily handed the gun to Husband and began searching the clothes. Victim then gave up the $200, retrieving it from his underwear. Next, Husband returned to the car where Wife was waiting, and Lopez-Gonzalez struck Victim in the back of the head with the gun. He asked, "[D]o you think this is for play?" From a few feet behind Victim, Lopez-Gonzalez shot the gun into the ground. Husband and Wife both heard the gunshot from the car.2 Lopez-Gonzalez continued to hit Victim until Victim passed out.
¶6 When Victim awoke, his cell phone, pants, shoes, and socks were gone. Victim, "totally covered in blood," had to walk to a hospital for treatment. He required stitches above and below his eye and staples in the back of his head. The orbital socket on the right side of his face was shattered, and at the time of Lopez-Gonzalez’s trial Victim still suffered vision problems in his right eye.
¶7 When the police arrested Lopez-Gonzalez and searched his vehicle, they found a gun that Husband later identified at trial as the one that Lopez-Gonzalez wielded. The police also recovered a bullet casing from the dirt road.
¶8 A detective (Detective) interviewed Lopez-Gonzalez at the police station after informing him of his rights. Lopez-Gonzalez told Detective that he had lent bail money to Wife "to make his life better because he purchased marijuana from [Husband]." He also explained that after bailing Husband out of jail, they went to Ogden to buy methamphetamine but it "didn’t work out." Lopez-Gonzalez said that when Victim was $200 short, he "was mad" that "somebody was trying to steal his money," and he then "pulled out a gun because he didn’t know who [Victim] was" or "what he had."
¶9 Lopez-Gonzalez admitted to Detective that he used the gun to hit Victim five times in the face and in the back of the head. He explained that he pointed the gun at Victim and asked "if [Victim] wanted [him] to shoot his testicles." He also told Victim that he "wasn’t going anywhere." Lopez-Gonzalez acknowledged that Victim’s phone was taken from Victim in the car. Lopez-Gonzalez stated that he "wanted to teach [Victim] a lesson" and that they drove to the dirt road near Tremonton so that he could "make [Victim] walk back." Lopez-Gonzalez described how he tried to get his money back at the dirt road, including that he directed Victim to remove his clothes, shoes, and socks and that he made Victim lie face down on the ground. Lopez-Gonzalez explained that he then took his money back and took Victim’s clothes. Although Lopez-Gonzalez initially denied firing the gun at the dirt road, he later admitted that he "fired it into the ground because he was mad." During this interview, Lopez-Gonzalez never described a time when Victim acted aggressively or made threats.
¶10 The State charged Lopez-Gonzalez with aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and aggravated assault. It also filed the same charges against Husband and Friend, but they both agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges and to testify against Lopez-Gonzalez.
¶11 At a jury trial, Wife, Victim, Husband, and Friend testified and recounted the events described above. Detective also testified regarding his investigation and his interview with Lopez-Gonzalez.
¶12 Lopez-Gonzalez testified in his own defense. Although he initially began testifying using an interpreter, he soon asked whether it would "be better" for him to testify in English. After trial counsel told him that "most likely" it was "a little easier for the jury" if he testified in English but that it was "up to" him, Lopez-Gonzalez provided the majority of his testimony in English without the use of an interpreter.
¶13 In his testimony, Lopez-Gonzalez confirmed key aspects of the State’s case. For example, he admitted that he hit Victim in the head with the gun and caused his injuries, told Victim that "if he won’t behave[ ] something else will happen[ ]," took Victim’s clothes, and fired a shot in the dirt road. Lopez-Gonzalez also admitted that he told Detective that he did this to Victim "to teach him a lesson."
¶14 Significantly, Lopez-Gonzalez also testified that while the group drove back from the failed drug transaction in Ogden, "[Victim] started getting up to try to crash the car," which caused Lopez-Gonzalez to feel "in danger," and "that’s when [Lopez-Gonzalez] pulled [his] weapon" and "hit" Victim. Lopez-Gonzalez insisted that he had mentioned this to Detective. To rebut this testimony, the State recalled Detective as a witness, and Detective testified that Lopez-Gonzalez did not tell him about Victim attempting to grab the wheel of the car.
¶15 The jury found Lopez-Gonzalez guilty as charged. On the special verdict forms, the jury indicated it found that the State had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Lopez-Gonzalez used a dangerous weapon in commission or in furtherance of the aggravated kidnapping and the aggravated assault. But the jury found that the State had not proved that Lopez-Gonzalez used a dangerous weapon in commission or in furtherance of the aggravated robbery. As a result, the aggravated kidnapping and aggravated assault convictions were subject to a dangerous weapon enhancement, but the aggravated robbery conviction was not.
¶16 The district court sentenced Lopez-Gonzalez to concurrent prison terms of sixteen years to life for aggravated kidnapping, five years to life for aggravated robbery, and fifteen years for aggravated assault resulting in serious bodily injury. Lopez-Gonzalez appeals.
¶17 Lopez-Gonzalez asks us to reverse his convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated assault due to ineffective assistance of counsel.3 "An ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Ott , 2010 UT 1, ¶ 16, 247 P.3d 344 (cleaned up).
¶18 He also asks that we reverse his convictions under the cumulative error doctrine. We will reverse under this doctrine "only if the cumulative effect of the several errors undermines our confidence that a fair trial was had." State v. Martinez-Castellanos , 2018 UT 46, ¶ 39, 428 P.3d 1038 (cleaned up).
¶19 To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must establish both that his "counsel’s performance was deficient" and that "the deficient performance prejudiced the defense." Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). To establish the first element, the defendant must show that his counsel’s performance "fell below an objective standard of reasonableness." Id. at 688, 104 S.Ct. 2052. Thus, he "must convince us that, despite the fact that ‘counsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance,’ counsel’s acts or omissions nevertheless fell ‘outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance.’ " State v. Nelson , 2015 UT 62, ¶ 14, 355 P.3d 1031 (quoting Strickland , 466 U.S. at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Suhail
...of counsel claim raised for the first time on appeal presents a question of law." State v. Lopez-Gonzalez , 2020 UT App 15, ¶ 17, 459 P.3d 1049 (quotation simplified).¶73 Sixth, Suhail requests—as an alternative to the above arguments—that we remand his case under rule 23B of the Utah Rules......
-
State v. Tippets
...was deficient’ and that ‘the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.’ " State v. Lopez-Gonzalez , 2020 UT App 15, ¶ 19, 459 P.3d 1049 (quoting Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) ). "Because both prongs of the Strickland test must be met......
-
State v. Tippets
...'performance was deficient' and that 'the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. Lopez-Gonzalez, 2020 UT App 15, ¶ 19, 459 P.3d 1049 (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)). "Because both prongs of the Strickland test must be met to establish ineffecti......