Archive for the ‘Utah Court’ Category

The Utah Court of Appeals

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Utah Court
0comment

Today’s blog covers some of the basic questions you may have about the Utah Court of Appeals and the types of cases they are responsible for handling.

Photo: Bruce Fingerhood

The Utah Court of Appeals was created in 1987 and has seven judges who each hold a six-year term. One of the judges is elected by a majority vote of the others to be the presiding judge every two years.

The Utah Court of Appeals hears all appeals from the juvenile and district courts in the state, except for small claims department appeals from a district court. The Court of Appeals also handles appeals from district court involving domestic relations cases, including:

• Divorce
• Annulment
• Property division
• Child custody
• Support
• Visitation
• Adoption and paternity

The Appeals Court is also responsible for criminal matters of less than a first-degree felony or capital felony. This Court also reviews appeals of administrative proceedings by state agencies including the Utah Industrial Commission and the Department of Employment Security Career Service Review Board. The Court also has jurisdiction to hear cases that are transferred to it by the Utah Supreme Court.

Court of Appeals sessions take place most often in Salt Lake City, but the Court does travel throughout the year to hold sessions in different locations within the state. Even though there are seven judges on the Court of Appeals, each session is handled by a rotating panel of three judges.

A panel will hear oral arguments in cases during the third and fourth weeks of each month. After an oral argument has been presented, the three judges on the panel meet together to discuss the points raised by both sides. Only one of the three judges will write the Court’s opinion.

If you have a case that you would like to have appealed, or if you want to understand the appeals process better, contact a Utah criminal defense attorney. Utah law is complex and your case deserves to be handled by someone who is skilled in legal language and procedures. Call an attorney today and find out what options are available to you.

State v. Vaughn

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Utah Court
0comment

In State v Vaughn, Raymond Harvey Vaughn appeals two sentences, specifically requesting that the Utah Court of Appeals review two issues: ineffective trial counsel and illegal sentences rendered by the trial court.

Photo: Gerry Dincher

The Backstory

Vaughn pleaded guilty to sexual abuse of a minor in April 2008, a class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced to 365 days in jail, but that sentence was suspended by the court and he was placed on three years’ probation. In October 2009, Vaughn pleaded guilty to enticing a minor over the internet, also a class A misdemeanor.

At a sentencing/revocation hearing in December 2009, Vaughn’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two consecutive one-year sentences at the Utah State Prison. After rendering the sentences, the trial court noted that they would request prison officials to start Vaughn on a rehabilitative program immediately. Vaughn personally expressed his approval of the sentences, stating his desire to get help.

The Next Step

About eight months into Vaughn’s sentences, a review hearing was held. The trial court was advised that Vaughn had not received any treatment while in prison and he wanted to be released. The trial court stated that the case was closed and apparently planned to terminate Vaughn’s sentences.

The Board of Pardons and Parole’s attorney pointed out that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to end Vaughn’s sentences. The trial court acknowledged that point, reinstated Vaughn’s sentences and clarified that he had a year left to serve in prison.

State v Vaughn

In arguing that he had ineffective trial counsel, Vaughn stated that his attorney should not have requested consecutive sentences. However, the Court of Appeals stated that Vaughn’s appeal was untimely because it was filed outside the time period for appeal.

The Court of Appeals also dismissed Vaughn’s claim that his sentences were illegal. They noted that the trial court added the request for rehabilitative therapy in the prison after rendering the sentences. Even though the trial court did not have jurisdiction to require Vaughn receive treatment while in prison, the Court stated that the request didn’t impact Vaughn’s sentences.

Effective Counsel

Even though Vaughn didn’t receive the responses he wanted, he did have the opportunity to make sure that his concerns with the law were reviewed. You should consult with a Utah criminal defense attorney if you believe a case you are involved in needs to be reexamined. Don’t wait and hope that your situation will resolve in your favor. Call an attorney today.

Can Jurors Can Opt for Nullification (find a guilty defendant not guilty) if They Disagree With the Law?

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

Even if you believe the defendant is guilty of the crime committed as a juror do you have the option of returning a “not guilty” verdict if you believe the law making the offense a crime is unjust? no, but it happens all the time.

Jury nullification has a history dating back to the founding fathers and the Constitution of the United States of America.  In an effort to ensure the fairness of laws, the Constitution allows veto power of five separate powers.  In other words, the House of Representatives, the Senate, the executive level of government, judges and juries all have the authority to veto or nullify a law they believe to be unfair.

It was the founding fathers who decided that a law must pass certain tests before it can be effectively enforced.  One such test is through the jury.  It was intended the jury would not only judge the accused but also the fairness of the law the defendant was accused of violating.  The jury was given the right and authority as the finder of fact in a trial but they also have the authority to judge the law itself and nullify the law if it was deemed unfair.

The first case in America cited with jury nullification is the case of John Peter Zenger.  Mr. Zenger was charged with libel for printing derogatory stories in his paper about Governor William Cosby of New York.  It was clear, Mr. Zenger was guilty of violating the seditious libel law but his lawyer argued the law was outmoded.  In a matter of minutes, the jury nullified the law and set Mr. Zenger free.

Brigham City v. Stuart – A Recap of Exigent Circumstances

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Dealing with Police, Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

In July, 2001, the police were called to a Brigham City home with a complaint of a loud party.  When police arrived, their attempts to announce their presence went unheard at which point the police moved to the rear of the house where they observed through a window several adults restraining a teen who had thrown a punch that drew blood.  One of the officers announced his presence again with no response and then entered the house announcing his presence again.

The issue is whether the police officers acted within the law when they entered the house without a search warrant.  Was announcing their presence enough to enter the house?  The answer is yes.

Exigent circumstances allow law enforcement to enter a property without a warrant under certain circumstances.  These circumstances include:

  • Whether the offense is a grave offense-particularly a crime of violence
  • Whether the suspect is reasonably believed to be armed
  • Whether the showing of probable cause connecting the defendant to the offense is more than minimal
  • Whether the police have strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premise being entered
  • Whether there is a likelihood the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended

The United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous ruling, reversed the Utah Supreme Court ruling indicating that due to the violence, police entered the house under exigent circumstances and a warrant was not necessary.

Alternatives to Adversarial Justice Available in Utah

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

The United States has a true adversarial system in which the finders of fact, the juries are neutral, there is a clear “winner” and the losing party has the opportunity to appeal the decision to a higher court.  Although this seems to be the most fair of systems to all parties involved, there is criticism citing the cost of the adversarial system.  So what are the alternatives?

Within our own adversarial system, we also have a non-adversarial system which encourages parties in a dispute to resolve their issues without litigation.  Mediation and arbitration are two such vehicles for dispute resolution.  With mediation, the parties come together and with the assistance of a mediator, work to negotiate a resolution.  Each party must come to the table with a willingness to make concessions and hopefully come to a mutually agreeable resolution.  In arbitration, the parties come together and each party is given an opportunity to present its best case and any evidence.  The case is decided by an arbitrator.  Although there is a clear winner in this type of case resolution, arbitration is binding and there is no forum for appeal for the losing party.

Each option offers an alternative to the adversarial system of justice which can be very time consuming and costly to each party.  Clearly this is an exciting option in civil cases but can it also be used in resolving some criminal cases?

Drug courts are an excellent example of handling criminal cases, minor drug offenses, in a non-adversarial setting and Utah courts both in the state and federal systems are embracing this practice. Drug possession is a criminal offense and the typical punishment, if convicted, is incarceration.  Our courtrooms are flooded with drug cases and our jails are filled with drug offenders.  The idea of a non-adversarial option in handling this social, not criminal problem is an innovative way to resolve these cases.  There are other current social problems which are currently being handled criminally which might benefit from a non-adversarial system similar to drug courts.  Some of these might be prostitution, first time DUI offenders, domestic violence and juvenile problems.  The United States needs to make a move away from an adversarial system for certain types of crimes.  In doing so we will be able to more effectively concentrate on more serious offences and free up valuable resources in our over-burdened court system.

Are Utah Prosecutors Required to Disclose the Identity of a Confidential Informant?

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Criminal Defense Misc, Evidence, Question, Utah Court, Utah Law
0comment

In a nutshell…maybe. A confidential informant or C.I. is someone who assists law enforcement by providing useful information used in the arrest and conviction of another person. The informant can act in a number of ways either by acting as a concerned citizen without the motivation of personal gain while other C.I.’s provide information in exchange for money or for perhaps leniency in cases where they are the defendant.

In Utah, the court can order prosecution to release the identity of the C.I. if it would be relevant or helpful or essential to ensuring the defendant receive a fair trial. The court must weigh relevant factors in making a determination such as potential hazards to safety of parties involved, public interest in protecting the flow of informant information and the defendant’s right to prepare his defense. Generally, the identity of an informant who was a witness to the crime with which the accused is charged or who was an actual participant in the commission of the alleged crime is subject to an order of disclosure.  State v. Forsbee, 611 P.2d 1222 (Utah 1980).

If police or prosecutors do not want to reveal the identity of the C.I. they will have to go to great lengths to show the court that revealing his identity will jeopardize his/her safety or make the C.I. unusable in the future. In the end it is at the court’s discretion and the judge will have to balance the utility of keeping the C.I.’s identify a secret against the constitution rights of the accused.

Plea Bargaining and the Utah Judicial Process

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Question, Utah Court
0comment

Plea bargaining first made its way into the criminal justice system during the mid-nineteenth century and has since become a powerful tool in adjudicating cases. There appears to be much debate over why plea bargaining has developed but one thing is clear and that is there is no singular answer. The most common factors cited in the rise of plea bargaining include: crowded court dockets, the oppressiveness of pretrial detention, the low quality of public defenders, the financial incentives of private attorneys, lazy prosecutors and uninformed judges. Several of these examples are not very complimentary to the players in the criminal justice system suggesting that we are sacrificing justice in the name of laziness and personal greed. In speaking with those in the Utah legal community, both judges and attorneys alike, have suggested plea bargaining is a necessary tool to keep the wheels of justice moving and without it, justice would come to a screeching halt. The overwhelming support in favor of plea bargaining is due in part to budget constraints and overcrowded dockets however, plea bargaining continues to develop in areas where court congestion is not a problem suggesting that plea bargaining is not simply a knee jerk response to a system overwhelmed but instead a shift in previously defined roles and how they affect justice.

In a cost benefit analysis; there are some very definite benefits to plea bargaining as opposed to taking every case to trial. Many supporters suggest plea bargaining has more to offer the players in the criminal justice process than a trial based system. It is suggested that plea bargaining allows the prosecutor to be more efficient, thereby being able to handle a greater case load than if more cases went to trial. The same would be true as well for judges, as they would be able to effectively handle a greater case load, and move their cases along with little or no delay. This is very attractive for judges who are faced with increasing pressure, due to case volume, to keep their docket moving. Additionally, plea bargaining is perceived as offering the accused a choice. There is a strong incentive in choosing plea bargaining over trial for both the prosecutor and the accused because there is more control over the outcome.

However, as attractive as plea bargaining looks from the standpoint of efficiency, cost effectiveness and predictability, there is also a downside. Plea bargaining gives enormous control over the outcome of the case to a single player in the process, the prosecutor. By giving such control to the prosecutor, it effectively removes the judge and reduces their role to that of an overseer of events. This is a far cry from the more active traditional role referenced previously. Similar to the different branches of government, the criminal justice system is based on a division of authority where no singular person has greater authority than another. Each person, the prosecutor, defense attorney and judge, has a role in the trial process which helps to ensure the victim, society and the individual rights of the accused are protected in the search for truth. By circumventing this process in favor of one which puts more power in the hands of a single person, the truth finding process is compromised in favor of efficiency.

From a defense perspective, plea bargaining is a lot like playing the odds in Las Vegas. The defendant must guess at what the evidence is and how strong the case is against him and hope that he does not guess wrong. In this situation, you run the risk of extracting guilty pleas from an innocent defendant who takes the safer bet but society pays as well in the case of a guilty defendant who due to plea bargaining gets a lighter sentence.

Critics of plea bargaining argue compromising the outcome of a case through the plea bargaining process is morally wrong. Indeed, the critics suggest efficiency is not enough to justify a system which although resolving some issues creates others such as wrongful convictions, broad prosecutorial power and sacrificing trials in favor of pleas.  Ultimately plea bargaining plays an important role in the Utah criminal justice system and will not be going away anytime soon.

Incompetent to Stand Trial in Utah?

Utah Attorney, Brooke Winters, on the topic of  Criminal Defense Misc, Legal Process, Utah Court, Utah Crime News, Utah Law
0comment

In Utah, a defendant must be able to understand the nature of the charges against them, their rights and be able to participate in their own defense and if they are unable to do so because of mental illness or other mental deficiencies a defendant may be found incompetent to stand trial. Between 2% and 8% of all felony defendants in the United States are referred for competency evaluations. Here in Utah, if a defendant is found incompetent to stand trial they are committed to the executive director of the Department of Human Services to see if they can be restored to competency through treatment and/or medication. If however, competency isn’t restored and there is a substantial probability that the defendant will not become competent in the foreseeable future the court must release the defendant from the custody of the director unless the court is informed of civil commitment proceedings.
Such is the case for a Utah man who in 2007 was charged with rape, sodomy and aggravated sexual abuse of a child. Lonnie Johnson was declared incompetent to stand trial after numerous competency evaluations and has been held at the Utah State Hospital since 2008. In April 2011 Mr. Johnson was released by a 4th District Court Judge who had no legal basis for continuing to hold him based on a doctor’s report that it was unlikely that he would ever regain competency. Prosecutor’s are now working to have Johnson civilly committed. If however prosecutors are unable to show that Johnson’s mental illness makes him a danger to himself or others it is possible he will be set free.

What If I Violate My Utah Criminal Probation?

Utah Criminal Defense Blog, on the topic of  Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

Utah probation is a privilege extended to a defendant who has been convicted of a crime and is almost always conditional. If you violate the terms and conditions of probation, then a judge can impose the original sentence, which in most cases includes jail or prison time. If your probation officer or the Court believe that you have violated probation, then an Order to Show Cause hearing, usually referred to as an OSC, is scheduled. At that hearing it is the prosecutor’s responsibility to provide evidence that the defendant is in violation of their probation by a preponderance of the evidence. Generally however, a defendant will need to present evidence of compliance. For example, a defendant may have completed community service, but proof of that community service did not reach the court, then a defendant may provide proof of community service. You have the right to hire a utah criminal defense attorney for an order to show cause.

Early Case Resolution Frequently Asked Questions

Clayton Simms, Criminal Defense Attorney, on the topic of  Constitutional Rights, Legal Process, Utah Court
0comment

1. What is Early Case Resolution (ECR)?

Early Case Resolution (ECR) allows defendants and defense attorneys quicker access to courts, prosecutors and the information necessary to deal more efficiently with criminal cases. Two ECR courts will operate Monday through Thursday both morning and afternoon. One ECR court will also be open Friday mornings. Representatives from Adult Probation and Parole and Criminal Justice Services will be present to provide background information. The District Attorney’s Office will staff the courts with veteran attorneys who will have authority to negotiate both plea offers and sentencing recommendations.

2. What type of cases will be heard in Early Case Resolution (ECR)?

All cases will go through the ECR courts. For more serious matters such as homicides and special victim cases the hearing will be treated as an initial appearance. Those cases without complicated legal or factual issues (including restitution) may remain in ECR.

3. Are defendants required to participate in ECR?

No. There is no requirement that anyone to participate in the ECR court. Either party can “opt out” of ECR at any time prior to disposition and for any reason. Many cases, even though they may start out as ECR eligible, will not resolve in ECR court.

4. What happens with NON-ECR cases and those that have “opted out?”

For NON-ECR cases, the ECR court will act as the initial appearance court where the defendant is advised as to the charges, a determination is made about appointment of counsel, and the issue of pre-trial release is addressed. Matters will be transferred to the assigned judge for a scheduling conference or set directly for a preliminary hearing. However, until April 28th, 2011, the scheduling conferences will be on the role call calendars. Thereafter, the scheduling conferences will be on the assigned judge’s law and motion calendars.

5. How will discovery be provided in ECR?

For those cases where the Salt Lake Legal Defender Association (LDA) is appointed, discovery will be sent immediately upon case filing. For private counsel, an initial discovery packet will be available after filing upon request and before the first hearing in ECR. If not requested before that hearing, the discovery packet will be with the file, and available for counsel, at the first hearing in ECR. In either circumstance there will be no charge for the initial discovery packet.
6. Are continuances allowed in the ECR court?
Yes. One of the principles of the ECR court will be a flexible continuance policy. Continuances will be allowed in order to obtain additional information, review discovery, consider offers, etc. However, continuances will be granted for shorter periods of time, mostly for days or a week at a time. With few exceptions, ECR cases must be resolved with 30 days.

7. Can defendants retain private counsel and remain in ECR?

Yes. Care will be taken to make sure that only persons who qualify will be appointed counsel. Defendants who may qualify for appointment but desire to retain private counsel will be encouraged to do so. In fact, the reason to gather the information about indigency at the same time as release information is to avoid the temptation some may have to declare sufficient resources for purposes of release, but later declare insufficient resources to obtain private counsel. Furthermore, those defendants that appear without counsel the court will further inquire into their ability to retain counsel. In appropriate circumstances, the court will recommend that counsel be retained. Continuances will be allowed for persons to obtain counsel.

8. Does ECR change the process of pretrial review of persons held in jail?

Yes. Under the new process, Salt Lake County Pretrial Services will first gather information regarding a detainee’s eligibility for pretrial release and for the consideration of appointment of counsel. Pretrial will continue to release detainees as they do currently. All persons released will received a date to appear in court. Pretrial will transmit the financial information to the court. The court will determine whether or not the defendant qualifies for appointment of counsel if the case is filed.

9. How will cases be resolved in ECR?

The caption of the Information will indicate whether the case has been approved for consideration in the ECR court. The discovery packet for ECR eligible cases will include a tentative settlement offer from the District Attorney’s Office. Defense counsel will be free to negotiate ECR cases as they would any other matter. Prosecutors will have authority to negotiate and modify offers, including sentencing recommendations.

10. How can sentencing recommendations be negotiated in ECR?

Pleas which include negotiated sentences will be offered under Utah R. Crim. P. 11(I) and therefore may be withdrawn if the court does not accept the proposed settlement.

11. If an ECR eligible case cannot be settled in ECR will the offer remain open?

No. Once a negotiation is concluded and the offer rejected, the ECR offer will be withdrawn. The exception will be those cases where negotiations must continue because the matter requires more time than is allowable in the ECR court. In those situations counsel may negotiate to have the offer remain open after the case leaves ECR.

The above article first appeared in the UACDL’s Defender magazine and was written by Kent Hart, who is the Executive Director of UACDL.