Appeals court weighs remand request in State v. Mendoza over absent medical expert and Rule 23B proffer

The Utah Court of Appeals heard argument in State v. Mendoza on whether a Rule 23B remand should be granted so the defendant can augment the record with medical-expert testimony and records relevant to an ineffective-assistance claim. Defense counsel argued that trial counsel failed to secure an expert to corroborate the defendant’s proffered medical defense; the State said the post-conviction records and the proffered affidavit cannot carry the defendant’s burden to show counsel was ineffective.

Davis Pope, who argued for Mr. Mendoza, told the panel that the defense’s primary theory at trial was medical: the defendant suffered from testicular hernias that impaired his ability to obtain or sustain an erection and diminished sexual drive, evidence the…