Opinion ID: 2576322
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Advice to Admit Ownership of Seized Property

Text: ¶ 39 We turn first to Cruz's argument that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance by counseling him to falsely admit ownership of the property seized at the house. Cruz's attorney in the proceedings below was the same attorney who represented him in the earlier civil forfeiture action. Cruz argues that his attorney advised him to falsely admit ownership of the seized property in the civil forfeiture action in order to protect the property interests of those who actually owned the seized property. According to Cruz, his admission of ownership did not serve his interests and, in fact, resulted in his conviction because it was used by the State to connect Cruz to the house where the meth lab was located. ¶ 40 We disagree that Cruz's attorney rendered ineffective assistance in this instance. We see nothing in the record to indicate that the performance of Cruz's attorney fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Myers, 2004 UT 31 at ¶ 20, 94 P.3d 211 (internal quotations omitted). [7] To support his claim that his attorney advised him to lie, Cruz relies on the following exchange between his attorney and Chad Platt, the State attorney who handled the civil forfeiture proceeding: [CRUZ'S ATTORNEY]: So the response I filed for Mr. Cruz covers all the property, because he is the only claimant you listed, correct? In the answer, we say not all the property is his, correct? [MR. PLATT]: In your verified answer? [CRUZ'S ATTORNEY]: Right. [MR. PLATT]: Right. I assume that, because you say most. I would assume you are saying some isn't. . . . . [CRUZ'S ATTORNEY]: . . . If Mr. Cruz didn't file an answer to protect everybody's rights that you didn't list, what would happen to that property? If somebody didn't file an answer to the property that was theirs, or claim it, it would be forfeited to your organization? [MR. PLATT]: If nobody answered to the complaint, right. And after a period of time goes by, nobody answers, then at that point what our office will do is file a motion for default judgment saying nobody has answered. ¶ 41 While these comments could be read to suggest that Cruz's attorney advised Cruz to claim ownership of seized property that was not his, that is not the only plausible interpretation. It is also plausible that Cruz admitted ownership of the property because it actually did belong to him and he wanted to protect it from forfeiture despite the potential repercussions of that strategy in any subsequent criminal proceeding. Accordingly, we conclude that Cruz has failed to establish that his attorney's performance was so deficient as to fall below an objective standard of reasonableness. Id. (internal quotations omitted). ¶ 42 Moreover, even if Cruz could establish that his attorney performed deficiently by advising him to admit ownership of the seized property in the civil forfeiture action, it would not help him here. A defendant may claim ineffective assistance of counsel only if he had a right to counsel in the first place, Wainwright v. Torna, 455 U.S. 586, 587-88, 102 S.Ct. 1300, 71 L.Ed.2d 475 (1982) (per curiam), and Cruz had no right to counsel in the civil forfeiture action. ¶ 43 The United States Constitution contains two sources of a right to counsel: the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. See Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 629, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986). The United States Supreme Court has noted that [t]he Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches only at the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings, and before proceedings are initiated a suspect in a criminal investigation has no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 456-57, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (citation omitted). In contrast, the Fifth Amendment right to counsel attaches during custodial interrogation, McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171, 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991), or `questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way,' Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661, 124 S.Ct. 2140, 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004) (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)). ¶ 44 Cruz admitted ownership of the seized property in the verified answer that he filed in the civil forfeiture action. That answer was filed in October 2000, six months before any criminal proceedings were initiated against him. Cruz consequently cannot claim a Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Moreover, because there is no allegation that Cruz was in custody when he filed his verified answer, he cannot claim a right to counsel under the Fifth Amendment. Without a right to counsel, Cruz cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel. Wainwright, 455 U.S. at 587-88, 102 S.Ct. 1300.