a mixed question of law and fact, and we review legal conclusions for correctness and factual findings for clear error. See Jacobs v. State, 2001 UT 17,¶ 20, 20 P.3d 382. ¶ 8 To demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel, Schultz must meet the heavy burden of showing that (1) trial counsel rendered deficient performance that fell below an objective standard of reasonable professional judgment and (2) counsel’s deficient performance was prejudicial. See Manning, 2004 UT App 87 at ¶ 31, 89 P.3d 196. ¶ 9 Schultz has failed to make this showing. We agree with the trial court that trial counsel sufficiently explained Schultz’s appellate rights. It is not surprising that Schultz was upset after learning that he was going to prison. Cf. State v. Benvenuto, 1999 UT 60,¶ 18, 983 P.2d 556 (<HOLDING>). We cannot say, however, that this distress
holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for a juvenile convicted of firstdegree murder is not cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the united states and pennsylvania constitutions recognizing that most people confronting possibility of lengthy prison sentence would suffer some level of depression holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence holding that a sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole as applied to a threetime offender is constitutional