A Utah man tried to withdraw Alford’s claim that an Idaho woman had been assaulted. See how the judge made the decision

In late October, a Salt Lake City man pleaded guilty to three felony charges for sexually assaulting an Idaho woman in 2018, and three months later, the 31-year-old man asked Alford to withdraw his statement.

But 4th Circuit Judge James Cawthon denied Nicholas Campbell’s request during an hour-long hearing on Friday. Campbell is expected to be sentenced at 9 a.m. Feb. 15 at the Ada County Courthouse, according to online court records.

“The court finds that Mr. Campbell failed to present a valid reason for withdrawing his guilty plea and the court will dismiss the motion,” Cawthon told the court.

In 2018, a woman from the same area as Campbell was jogging when Campbell attacked her from behind, as previously reported in a press release from the Ada County Sheriff’s Office. He eventually filed Alford’s guilty plea, which has the effect of a guilty plea, for three felonies: battery with the intent to commit a serious crime and two improvements, grievous bodily harm, and destruction, alteration or concealment of evidence.

In his motion, Campbell’s lawyer, Raymond Schild, said that since Campbell filed a guilty plea for Alford, he has “failed to admit to having committed the alleged acts.” Schild said Campbell is now seeking legal action.

In a January 25 objection, Ada County Attorneys Kathleen Farley and Daniel Dinger said that Campbell had no “automatic right” to withdraw his application.

“All that the defendant maintained was that he filed a guilty plea for Alford and did not admit actual guilt,” the petition says. “He provided nothing further to support the withdrawal of the guilty plea.”

The prosecutor’s objection also pointed to the Idaho Supreme Court decision, which said that the fact that an individual uses Alford’s statement does not mean that it can be “willy-nilly” withdrawn.

“The usefulness of Alford’s statements would be greatly reduced if defendants were allowed to withdraw them prior to sentencing without additional reasons,” State V. Doppa said in the ruling. “Such a decision may well lead to the reluctance of prosecutors and judges to agree to accept such statements.”

The story goes on

Lawyer says Campbell suffers from mental illness

Schild also mentioned Campbell’s mental health history during Friday’s hearing and said it should be taken into account in the decision because Campbell has no memory of committing the attack. He added that doctors diagnosed Campbell with multiple conditions, such as schizoaffective disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, paranoia and schizophrenia.

“I don’t have an expert opinion on this,” Schild said. “I don’t have a factual basis other than what he tells me, but I can tell you that he doesn’t think he’s right mentally, psychologically.”

Campbell was previously declared legally incompetent in 2021.

Cawthon said the notion that Campbell had no memory of the crime was based on just one statement from the investigative package.

One of the questions in the packet was: “How do you feel about committing a crime?” Campbell replied, “I don’t remember committing that crime.”

“Now there is no doubt that Mr Campbell is suffering from serious mental health problems,” said Cawthon. “It’s not a question. The question is, does he have the competence to understand the nature of the proceedings? Does he have the right to assist a lawyer?

Cawthon said that “everything in the report” showed Campbell to be competent.

The judge also said the report contains two “references” to previous arrests and convictions for “violent crimes and assault-related crimes.” In addition, a psychosexual evaluation indicated that Campbell was at “high risk” of reoffending and not amenable to treatment.

“Complete rupture of the lawyer-client relationship”

On January 23, Schild also filed a motion to vacate Campbell’s attorney’s office, and stated in a subsequent sworn statement in support of the motion received by the Statesman that Campbell “failed to follow counsel’s advice.” The move was canceled on Friday after Cawthon denied Campbell’s request to withdraw his request.

“There are fundamental differences between attorney and client in the conduct of a case and a complete and complete breakdown of the relationship between attorney and client, which makes it impossible to effectively represent the defendant,” Schild wrote in the affidavit.

Farley and Dinger objected, stating that appointing a new attorney to handle the case would delay the case and that the victim was “seeking a verdict.” Their objection stated that Schild was an “experienced attorney” who had been on the case for “significantly more than a year”.

“Starting this process over again with a new lawyer would be very burdensome for all involved,” the prosecutor’s office said in a motion.

Content Source

News Press Ohio – Latest News:
Columbus Local News || Cleveland Local News || Ohio State News || National News || Money and Economy News || Entertainment News || Tech News || Environment News

Related Articles

Back to top button