State v. Medina
Medina
Citation
2025 UT App 99
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
July 3, 2025
Importance
34%
Practice Areas
Case Summary
2025 UT App 99 THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, Appellee, v. SERGIO BRISENO MEDINA, Appellant. Opinion No. 20220789-CA Filed July 3, 2025 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Randall N. Skanchy No. 161903223 Emily Adams, Freyja Johnson, and Rachel Phillips Ainscough, Attorneys for Appellant Derek E. Brown and Daniel W. Boyer, Attorneys for Appellee JUDGE AMY J. OLIVER authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and RYAN D. TENNEY concurred. OLIVER, Judge: ¶1 Sergio Briseno Medina was convicted of the murder of Hope Gabaldon and obstructing justice. Medina appeals his convictions, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that a key witness in the prosecution’s case was unavailable to testify at trial, and that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Medina also filed a motion pursuant to rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure seeking a remand to support his ineffective assistance claim. We reject Medina’s arguments, deny his rule 23B motion, and affirm his convictions. State v. Medina BACKGROUND 1 The Week Before Hope’s Murder ¶2 Hope and Medina were friends who were involved in selling drugs. Medina claimed he wanted to scare Hope out of the drug business. To that end, during the week before Hope’s murder, Medina asked his girlfriend (Girlfriend) to call Hope from a blocked number and ask Hope if she was going to “take a deal.” Girlfriend did so at least twice. Then, on February 24, 2016, Medina texted Girlfriend that he needed to “[t]ake someone out.” When Girlfriend asked why, he responded, “No good.” The Day of Hope’s Murder ¶3 Around 3:30 p.m. on February 25, Hope and Medina got into an argument about her allegedly accessing his phone and contacting people in the drug scene and stealing money from him. Based on cell phone records, the last communication between Hope and Medina occurred around 5:45 p.m. that day. By 9:51 p.m., Hope’s phone was no longer sending or receiving information. Shortly after Hope’s phone stopped working, Medina called his friend, Luis, 2 to ask for a ride because he was “stranded.” When Medina could not get hold of Luis, he called another friend (Driver) for a ride. Medina did not give Driver an exact address. Instead, he gave her directions over the phone. Once she arrived, he asked her to take him to Girlfriend’s house. 1. “On appeal from a jury trial, we review the record facts in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly. We present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” State v. Speights, 2021 UT 56, n.1, 497 P.3d 340 (cleaned up). 2. A pseudonym. 20220789-CA 2 2025 UT App 99 State v. Medina ¶4 Close to the time Driver picked up Medina, a man returning home from the grocery store noticed a woman lying on the ground alongside the road, half in the gutter and half on the lawn, and called 911. When police officers arrived at the scene, the woman was still alive and was taken to the hospital. She had been stabbed eighteen times, and she ultimately succumbed to her injuries. The woman was later identified as Hope. ¶5 When Medina arrived at Girlfriend’s house, he asked Girlfriend for a change of clothes. Medina went into Girlfriend’s house for a few minutes before returning to Driver’s car with a bag that he put in the backseat. Driver and Medina then left to get food before going to Driver’s house. ¶6 After he left Girlfriend’s house, Medina texted Girlfriend and told her that there were bags outside of her house that he wanted her to get rid of. When Girlfriend asked Medina when he had left them, he responded, “Just now.” Girlfriend asked him what the bags looked like, and Medina described them only as “pink.” When Girlfriend looked in the bags, she saw someone else’s clothes, including sweaters, shoes, and women’s underwear. She became upset because she thought Medina was asking her to wash another woman’s clothes, and because the bags were not hers, she put them in the shed at her house. ¶7 When Medina and Driver arrived at Driver’s house, Girlfriend texted Driver asking if Driver knew where Medina was. Driver told Medina about the texts, and Medina told Driver he did not want to talk to Girlfriend and to “just tell her that he left, and then to check the news.” Driver relayed this to Girlfriend. The Da
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 3, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
2025 UT App 99
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF UTAH,
Appellee,
v.
SERGIO BRISENO MEDINA,
Appellant.
Opinion
No. 20220789-CA
Filed July 3, 2025
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Randall N. Skanchy
No. 161903223
Emily Adams, Freyja Johnson, and Rachel Phillips
Ainscough, Attorneys for Appellant
Derek E. Brown and Daniel W. Boyer,
Attorneys for Appellee
JUDGE AMY J. OLIVER authored this Opinion, in which
JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN FORSTER and RYAN D. TENNEY concurred.
OLIVER, Judge:
¶1 Sergio Briseno Medina was convicted of the murder of Hope Gabaldon and obstructing justice. Medina appeals his convictions, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that a key witness in the prosecution’s case was unavailable to testify at trial, and that he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel. Medina also filed a motion pursuant to rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure seeking a remand to support his ineffective assistance claim. We reject Medina’s arguments, deny his rule 23B motion, and affirm his convictions. State v. Medina
BACKGROUND 1
The Week Before Hope’s Murder
¶2 Hope and Medina were friends who were involved in selling drugs. Medina claimed he wanted to scare Hope out of the drug business. To that end, during the week before Hope’s murder, Medina asked his girlfriend (Girlfriend) to call Hope from a blocked number and ask Hope if she was going to “take a deal.” Girlfriend did so at least twice. Then, on February 24, 2016, Medina texted Girlfriend that he needed to “[t]ake someone out.” When Girlfriend asked why, he responded, “No good.”
The Day of Hope’s Murder
¶3 Around 3:30 p.m. on February 25, Hope and Medina got into an argument about her allegedly accessing his phone and contacting people in the drug scene and stealing money from him. Based on cell phone records, the last communication between Hope and Medina occurred around 5:45 p.m. that day. By 9:51 p.m., Hope’s phone was no longer sending or receiving information. Shortly after Hope’s phone stopped working, Medina called his friend, Luis, 2 to ask for a ride because he was “stranded.” When Medina could not get hold of Luis, he called another friend (Driver) for a ride. Medina did not give Driver an exact address. Instead, he gave her directions over the phone. Once she arrived, he asked her to take him to Girlfriend’s house.
-
“On appeal from a jury trial, we review the record facts in a light most favorable to the jury’s verdict and recite the facts accordingly. We present conflicting evidence only as necessary to understand issues raised on appeal.” State v. Speights, 2021 UT 56, n.1, 497 P.3d 340 (cleaned up).
-
A pseudonym.
20220789-CA 2 2025 UT App 99 State v. Medina
¶4 Close to the time Driver picked up Medina, a man returning home from the grocery store noticed a woman lying on the ground alongside the road, half in the gutter and half on the lawn, and called 911. When police officers arrived at the scene, the woman was still alive and was taken to the hospital. She had been stabbed eighteen times, and she ultimately succumbed to her injuries. The woman was later identified as Hope.
¶5 When Medina arrived at Girlfriend’s house, he asked Girlfriend for a change of clothes. Medina went into Girlfriend’s house for a few minutes before returning to Driver’s car with a bag that he put in the backseat. Driver and Medina then left to get food before going to Driver’s house.
¶6 After he left Girlfriend’s house, Medina texted Girlfriend and told her that there were bags outside of her house that he wanted her to get rid of. When Girlfriend asked Medina when he had left them, he responded, “Just now.” Girlfriend asked him what the bags looked like, and Medina described them only as “pink.” When Girlfriend looked in the bags, she saw someone else’s clothes, including sweaters, shoes, and women’s underwear. She became upset because she thought Medina was asking her to wash another woman’s clothes, and because the bags were not hers, she put them in the shed at her house.
¶7 When Medina and Driver arrived at Driver’s house, Girlfriend texted Driver asking if Driver knew where Medina was. Driver told Medina about the texts, and Medina told Driver he did not want to talk to Girlfriend and to “just tell her that he left, and then to check the news.” Driver relayed this to Girlfriend.
The Da
Legal Topics
Areas of law covered in this case
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
July 3, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools