State v. Gilbert
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Craig Ivan Gilbert, Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090799-CA F I L E D (December 24, 2009) 2009 UT App 391 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 091904291 The Honorable Judith S. Atherton Attorneys: Craig Ivan Gilbert, Provo, Appellant Pro Se Mark L. Shurtleff and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: Craig Ivan Gilbert appeals from the September 3, 2009 order adjudicating his competency to proceed further in a pending prosecution. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition. We affirm. A criminal defendant may appeal an order adjudicating his or her competency to proceed further in a pending prosecution. See Utah Code Ann. § 77-18a-1(1)(c) (2008). The district court's September 3, 2009 order adjudicated Gilbert as incompetent and determined that Gilbert's mental disorders resulted in his inability to engage in reasoned choices regarding legal strategies with counsel and participate in the proceedings against him with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. On appeal, Gilbert does not challenge the district court's findings regarding his competency to stand trial, whether the competency proceedings appropriately complied with the relevant statutes, or the content or the accuracy of the competency evaluations. Rather, Gilbert seeks an appellate ruling on matters outside the scope of the commitment order. In sum, Gilbert asserts: (1) that he is a victim of human trafficking, and as such, has an absolute defense to the burglary, criminal mischief, and intoxication charges; and (2) that he is an agent working for the U.S. Constitution under the defense clause to review whether citizens are being deprived of equal access and subject to a monarchical government. The district court did not rule on these issues in its commitment order. Rather, the district court referenced Gilbert's "human trafficking" defense and his assertion that he is an agent working for the Constitution merely as examples of Gilbert's inability to meaningfully participate in his defense. Because the issues raised by Gilbert are outside the scope of the commitment order, they present insubstantial questions for appellate review. Thus, we decline to address them. See Utah R. App. P. 10. Gilbert next asserts that his counsel was ineffective for failing to appeal the issues raised by Gilbert. The Utah Supreme Court has determined that counsel's failure to take certain actions in representing a client's interests does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel if such action would have been futile. See State v. White, 1999 UT 96, ¶ 34, 989 P.2d 52. Because the issues raised by Gilbert are outside the scope of the commitment order, we cannot say that Gilbert's counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to appeal such issues. Affirmed.1 ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 1 To the extent that Gilbert has raised other issues not specifically addressed above, we determine that such issues lack merit, and we decline to address them further. See State v. Carter, 888 P.2d 629, 648 (Utah 1994). 20090799-CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
