State v. Wall

• Decision Date: 17 December 2020
• Docket Number: No. 20180759-CA,20180759-CA
• Citation: 479 P.3d 355
• Parties: STATE of Utah, Appellee, v. Shayne Mikel WALL, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

479 P.3d 355

STATE of Utah, Appellee,

v.Shayne Mikel WALL, Appellant.

No. 20180759-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed December 17, 2020

Mary C. Corporon, Crystal Lynn Orgill, Salt Lake City, and Kristen C. Kiburtz, Attorneys for Appellant

Simarjit S. Gill and Liesel Roscher, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge Michele M. Christiansen Forster authored this Opinion, in which Judges Jill M. Pohlman and Ryan M. Harris concurred.

Opinion

CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER, Judge:

¶1 Shayne Mikel Wall appeals his conviction for assault stemming from a physical altercation with the partner of his former girlfriend. Arguing that his trial counsel was deficient in various ways both before and after trial, Wall claims that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Although we express concerns with trial counsel's handling of the case, we affirm.

BACKGROUND¹

¶2 While dating a woman (Girlfriend), Wall developed a relationship with her seven-year-old child (Child), which he continued to maintain even after Wall and Girlfriend ended their relationship. Wall made plans with Girlfriend to take Child to a basketball game one evening in January 2016.

¶3 Earlier that day, Girlfriend's then romantic partner (Victim) became upset with Wall when he learned that Wall had grabbed Girlfriend's "private parts." Victim responded by sending Wall a text message: "Hey fuck face (redneck) I heard that you wanna to get your [ass] kick! You touched my gf asshole. Just let me know when and where and do[n't] go crying to your mamma after ok! Just don't cry later pothead."²

¶4 Unfortunately, the evening did not end on a positive note. At around 10:00 p.m., Wall returned to Girlfriend's house after the game to drop off Child. Victim was also at Girlfriend's house at this time, waiting outside in his car for Girlfriend as she readied herself for a date with Victim. After Wall dropped Child off at the door, a verbal altercation between Wall and Victim soon escalated into a physical fight. Victim's injuries included extensive abrasions and swelling to his face, which caused him to miss three weeks of work and suffer from ongoing headaches. Wall had some injuries to his knuckles

. After investigation, the State came to believe that Wall had been the aggressor and charged him with one count of assault.

¶5 Wall retained an attorney (Counsel). It appears Counsel's diligence in representing Wall was less than exemplary. Counsel failed to respond to the State's discovery request, even after the district court ordered him to provide the requested information. Counsel also failed to appear at several pretrial proceedings. Counsel eventually sent an email to the court explaining that he had been absent because his bar license was "no longer active" and that he had been advised by the Utah State Bar "to talk as little as possible to the court and or clients until this matter" concerning his license was resolved. He stated that he was under the impression that the Utah State Bar would notify "the court explaining that [Counsel] was no longer licensed and that [he] would not be at any of the hearings." Counsel requested that any hearings be continued until his license was reactivated. After Counsel emailed the court but again failed to appear, the district court issued an order "to show cause why [Counsel] should not be held in contempt of court for failure to appear on multiple occasions on this case," and Counsel finally appeared before the court to explain his previous absences. The court withdrew the order to show cause and moved forward with Wall's pretrial proceedings and a jury trial. While the record contains few details about the reinstatement of Counsel's license, it appears that he had been returned to good standing by February 16, 2018, the date of the hearing at which he attempted to explain his previous failures to appear. After the court withdrew the order to show cause, Counsel represented Wall for the remainder of the district court proceedings.

¶6 At trial, Wall, Victim, a neighbor (Witness), and a detective (Detective) testified. Girlfriend, Child, and Girlfriend's father, who were all inside the house at the time of the assault, were not called to testify.

¶7 Wall's defense at trial was that Victim had initiated the attack and that Wall was acting only in self-defense. Wall testified that he and Victim had a contentious relationship, asserting that Victim had appeared at his house "close to ten times" in the past to tell Wall "to stay away." Wall admitted that Victim had never threatened to harm him during these past encounters and that none of the encounters had escalated to any physical altercation. With regard to the night of the assault, Wall said that he parked his vehicle about ten to fifteen feet behind Victim's vehicle. He testified that as he was walking back to his vehicle after having dropped off Child, he and Victim "started to have a verbal confrontation." Wall claimed that Victim approached him and came within three feet of him with "both hands balled up ... at his waist." Wall testified,

I lunged at him, grabbed him by his chest, picked him off the ground and drove him straight to his back. I believe he was unconscious at that point. I grabbed him by his throat and probably held him for a few seconds. I was [lying] over the top of him. I would say it took five seconds before he moved again and at the end of that five seconds he started hitting me in the back of my head from his back.

Wall explained that he then "popped up" off Victim but that Victim "was still trying to hit" him. In response, Wall "grabbed [Victim] by his head and ... smashed [Victim's] head into the ground twice." Wall testified that Victim "was pretty hurt at that point and [Wall] knew it." Wall explained that when he stood up at this point, Victim "punched" him in his knee. So, Wall "went right back down on top of [Victim]," "grabbed him at his throat," "and punched him three more times." Wall claimed that, even after Victim was unconscious, he still feared for his life, explaining, "I don't know that he don't got a weapon. He's waiting for me in the dark. And he's been nothing but a problem the entire time." After seeing a car drive by, Wall again got off Victim and left in his vehicle. Wall said that he did not have injuries from the altercation other than abrasions to his hands

and a sore knee the next day. Finally, Wall denied having a weapon with him.

¶8 Victim testified that he had been dating Girlfriend for about six years and that he was planning on visiting her at her house on the night of the altercation. Victim admitted that he was "very upset" with Wall for having grabbed Girlfriend's "private parts" earlier that day and that he responded to this behavior by sending the threatening text message to Wall. Victim said that he had visited Wall's residence in the past on three different occasions to clarify the nature of Wall's relationship with Girlfriend but that these prior interactions between Wall and Victim consisted of only verbal disagreements and were never physical.

¶9 Victim further denied that he was lying in wait for Wall outside of Girlfriend's house. Rather, he explained that he chose to wait curbside in his vehicle for Girlfriend for a few minutes after he learned, en route to her house, that Girlfriend was showering. Victim estimated that Wall parked his vehicle down the street about forty-five to fifty feet away from his vehicle. Victim began to exit his vehicle as Wall walked back to his own vehicle after returning Child to Girlfriend. Victim testified that Wall was calling him names as Wall returned to his vehicle, opened the door, and retrieved a "long object" from under the driver seat. Wall then "came running towards [Victim] with the object." Victim testified,

I didn't even move. I was just kind of right outside my car. ... [H]e came at me swinging the object. I remember getting hit the first time on the left side of my face and then a couple times in the back of my head. I lost consciousness. I cannot tell you for how long I was unconscious.

Victim then recalled awakening on his back next to his vehicle with Wall on top of him, while Wall proceeded to punch him nine or ten times, choke him, and slam his "head into the ground." Feeling "very dizzy" and "disoriented," Victim recalled seeing some lights in the road and Wall "running to his car." Victim said he sustained injuries to his eyes, face, nose, mouth, neck, and side and back of his head as a result of the attack. He noted that he suffered substantial pain, pressure in his head, and vision problems after the assault. He was under a neurologist's care because he continued to suffer from headaches after the incident.

¶10 Witness testified that as she was driving home, she saw two people fighting in the road around 10:00 p.m. She recalled seeing Victim lying on his back near his vehicle with Wall to his side. She saw Wall hit Victim "[a]t least three" times, but she did not see Victim throw any punches. She testified that shortly after her arrival, Wall left the scene.

¶11 Detective testified that based on where Victim's vehicle was parked, there was between fifteen and twenty-five feet separating Wall's and Victim's vehicles. Detective stated that blood was found only on the driver side door of Victim's car and on the road by that door. Detective opined that this blood evidence was not consistent with Wall's contention that Victim had charged at him, stating, "[I]f the fight would have happened where ... Wall said, we would have seen blood or some evidence of that incident happening there. But where we find it, actually, is in front of [Victim's] car." Detective testified that he found no weapon during his investigation. Finally, Detective noted that Wall had no injuries apart from "some light abrasions to his knuckles."

¶12 The jury convicted Wall as charged, and Wall appeals. In connection with his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, Wall sought a remand for an evidentiary hearing under rule...