D'AMBROSIA v. State

Court of Appeals of Utah

D'AMBROSIA v. State

2011 UT App 217, 261 P.3d 102, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 64, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 211, 2011 WL 2581455

CourtCourt of Appeals of Utah

DecidedJune 30, 2011

Docket20110456-CA

StatusPublished

This text of 2011 UT App 217 (D'AMBROSIA v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

D'AMBROSIA v. State, 2011 UT App 217, 261 P.3d 102, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 64, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 211, 2011 WL 2581455 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

. DECISION

PER CURIAM:

11 Andrew Paul D'Ambrosia Jr. appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief as frivolous. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review.

12 The trial court did not err in dismissing D'Ambrosia's petition because D' Ambrosia failed to state a claim as a matter of law. D'Ambrosia asserted that he was unlawfully arrested and that evidence unlawfully obtained was used against him. However, because he pleaded no contest to the charge, he has waived these issues. See State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 15, 167 P.3d 1046 (noting that by pleading guilty, a defendant waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including constitutional claims); State v. Smith, 833 P.2d 371, 372 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (stating that a plea of guilty or no contest waives the right to challenge all non-jurisdictional issues).

13 D'Ambrosia also asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. However, he has not alleged any specific facts that would establish either deficient performance or prejudice. See State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1225 (Utah 1998) (noting that *103 to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice). He asserts that counsel refused to file a motion to dismiss the charges against him, forcing him to file a pro se motion. However, failing to make a motion that would be futile if filed does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Parsons v. Barnes, STL P.2d 516, 525 (Utah 1994). D'Ambrosia did not show that such a motion would be successful, nor did he allege any other specific facts that would support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the alleged basis for the motion to dismiss was waived by his no contest plea. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that D'Ambrosia had failed to state a claim as a matter of law and that his petition was therefore frivolous.

T 4 Affirmed. 1

1

. To the extent that D'Ambrosia asserts that he was denied his right to appeal his sentence, he may seek relief under rule 4(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

. DECISION

PER CURIAM:

11 Andrew Paul D'Ambrosia Jr. appeals the trial court's dismissal of his petition for postconviction relief as frivolous. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review.

12 The trial court did not err in dismissing D'Ambrosia's petition because D' Ambrosia failed to state a claim as a matter of law. D'Ambrosia asserted that he was unlawfully arrested and that evidence unlawfully obtained was used against him. However, because he pleaded no contest to the charge, he has waived these issues. See State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶ 15, 167 P.3d 1046 (noting that by pleading guilty, a defendant waives all nonjurisdictional defects, including constitutional claims); State v. Smith, 833 P.2d 371, 372 (Utah Ct.App.1992) (stating that a plea of guilty or no contest waives the right to challenge all non-jurisdictional issues).

13 D'Ambrosia also asserted that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. However, he has not alleged any specific facts that would establish either deficient performance or prejudice. See State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201, 1225 (Utah 1998) (noting that *103 to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, a defendant must show both deficient performance and prejudice). He asserts that counsel refused to file a motion to dismiss the charges against him, forcing him to file a pro se motion. However, failing to make a motion that would be futile if filed does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. See Parsons v. Barnes, STL P.2d 516, 525 (Utah 1994). D'Ambrosia did not show that such a motion would be successful, nor did he allege any other specific facts that would support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. Furthermore, the alleged basis for the motion to dismiss was waived by his no contest plea. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in determining that D'Ambrosia had failed to state a claim as a matter of law and that his petition was therefore frivolous.

T 4 Affirmed. 1

1

. To the extent that D'Ambrosia asserts that he was denied his right to appeal his sentence, he may seek relief under rule 4(f) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2011 UT App 217, 261 P.3d 102, 685 Utah Adv. Rep. 64, 2011 Utah App. LEXIS 211, 2011 WL 2581455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dambrosia-v-state-utahctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack