Judge Continues Waiver Hearing in State v. Mark Allen After Defense Raises Conflict With County Attorney

A judge in the Fourth District Court's Provo division continued the waiver hearing in State of Utah v. Mark Allen (case no. 211401656) after defense counsel said he would file a motion to disqualify the Utah County Attorney's Office.

In court, defense counsel Parmley asked for a continuance, saying,"Your honor, we're gonna need a continuance on this for a couple of reasons. I filed a specific discovery request, that has not yet been responded to, as well as I noticed, brought to my attention yesterday, the alleged victim in this case has filed a lawsuit, against the county attorney, David Levitt, related to his conduct with respect to this case, which I think creates a conflict of interest with that office." The transcript shows Parmley said he planned to file a motion to disqualify the county attorney's office so decisions in prosecuting Mark Allen would not be influenced by the separate civil case.

Sandy Johnson, appearing for the state, told the court she had heard Parmley's arguments and said, "The state doesn't have an objection." The judge remarked that, on the face of the representations, "there's a clear conflict of interest if the victims filed a lawsuit against the county attorney's office." The judge directed counsel to confer on arrangements for another prosecuting office if a conflict is found.

The court scheduled the next hearing for Feb. 9 at 1:00 p.m. and noted that the matter would remain before the same judge; if a conflict is formally established, the case would be prosecuted by another office. Parmley told the court he would "get that motion filed straight away, as soon as I can get that prepared." The transcript indicates Mark Allen was briefly not connected to the virtual proceeding but later was confirmed to be able to hear the session.

The hearing was continued; no formal disqualification ruling or change of prosecutor was made at the proceeding. The defense's planned motion to disqualify and the outstanding discovery request are next steps recorded on the court calendar for the Feb. 9 hearing.