State of Utah v. Coando

Annotate this Case
State v. Coando. Filed October 28, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS


State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,


Patrick Dean Coando,
Defendant and Appellant.

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981057-CA

October 28, 1999
    1999 UT App 313 -----

Eighth District, Roosevelt Department
The Honorable A. Lynn Payne

Michael L. Humiston, Heber City, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Norman E. Plate, Salt Lake City, for Appellee


Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Jackson.


When a defendant raises an ineffective assistance claim for the first time on appeal, the claim will be reviewed only if "the trial record is adequate to permit decision of the issue." State v. Humphries, 818 P.2d 1027, 1029 (Utah 1991). There is inadequate support in the record for us to consider Coando's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. No transcripts of trial court proceedings were ordered and the alleged documents upon which Coando relies are not in the record. Accordingly, we must presume the regularity of the proceedings and cannot consider Coando's claim of ineffective assistance. See id.

We also reject Coando's claim that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over him because he is an Indian and the crime allegedly occurred on Indian land. The crime was committed at Stewart's Thriftway in Roosevelt, Utah, and it has been determined, in a case involving Coando, that "Roosevelt, Utah, is not in Indian country" and the state court has jurisdiction over incidents occurring in Roosevelt. See State v. Coando, 858 P.2d 926, 927 (Utah 1992) (citations omitted).

By pleading guilty, Coando is deemed to have waived all nonjurisdictional defects. See State v. Parsons, 781 P.2d 1275, 1278 (Utah 1989). Thus, his other claims can be rejected on the basis of waiver.

Even if Coando's other arguments were not waived, all can be rejected on other grounds. There is insufficient support in the record for Coando's claim that the State failed to abide by an alleged plea agreement. A minute entry indicates Coando changed his plea during the trial, but there is no mention of the plea being conditional. More significantly, there is no plea agreement in the record making it impossible for us to consider Coando's assertion about the nature of his plea.

Coando never formally asked for a change of venue so he cannot support his claim that the trial court erred in not changing the venue. He made unsupported assertions that the community was biased against him, but did not comply with the requirements for seeking a change of venue. See Utah R. Crim. P. 29(e)(i). In particular, Coando failed to submit an affidavit in support of his allegations and did not make them until the eve of trial. Id.


Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge

James Z. Davis, Judge

Norman H. Jackson, Judge