Archive for the ‘Utah Court’ Category
A man sentenced to prison in 2011 recently filed a sua sponte motion for summary disposition with the Utah Court of Appeals in the matter of State v Brown.
State v Brown
The case involves Keith Brown, who pleaded guilty in February 2011 to sodomy and sexual abuse of a child. Brown was appealing the district court’s denial of his motion to set aside his guilty pleas.
A verdict can be appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals under certain circumstances; however, the defendant carries the burden of proving his case.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals stated that Brown had not filed his motion in a timely manner, noting that a request to withdraw a guilty plea needs to be made by motion before the judge announces the sentence. When a motion to withdraw a guilty plea isn’t made in the appropriate time frame, the defendant loses his right to challenge the validity of the guilty plea on appeal.
The Court of Appeals’ Decision
The Court of Appeals denied Brown’s motion, stating that they did not have jurisdiction to review whether or not the district court made any mistakes in denying the motion for misplea. Brown will continue serving his sentence as previously given.
A benefit of the judicial system is that people who are found guilty of a crime often have the opportunity to appeal that conviction, or at least aspects of the conviction. Another advantage of the judicial system is that everyone is entitled to legal representation.
That is where a good Utah criminal defense attorney comes in. Regardless of the charges against you, don’t hesitate to talk to an experienced attorney who has a history of winning his clients’ cases. If you are facing criminal charges, you need the services of a top Utah criminal defense attorney who will fight hard to protect your rights and freedom.
Tags: Appeal, court of appeals, guilty, motion, motion to appeal, state v brown
Posted in Utah Court | No Comments »
In Utah, a person may petition the Appeals Court after he has been convicted of a felony for ineffective assistance of counsel—another way of saying that an attorney erred in some fashion. In order to claim ineffective assistance of counsel, a person must prove that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that such deficient performance prejudiced the defendant’s case.
Photo: roosac
State v. Jimenez
In a recent appellate case, State v. Jimenez, the convicted man filed a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that his attorney failed to do the following:
• Obtain forensic examinations of the victims
• Make appropriate motions
• Object to prior bad acts testimony from a witness
What Did the Court of Appeals Think?
The Court of Appeals determined that Jimenez’s attorney didn’t perform ineffectively because he didn’t ignore relevant evidence. They also decided that a case against a person may contain multiple charges against multiple victims if the charges are based on the same conduct or are otherwise connected.
The court noted that, concerning the witness’s testimony about prior bad acts, they do not decide whether or not Jimenez’s counsel should have objected—although they do say that no prejudice occurred from the testimony.
After reviewing the defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court determined that Jimenez’s attorney did not err and the Appeals Court upheld his conviction.
Talk to a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Right Away
It’s important that any person convicted of crime be able to appeal his case if he believes that an injustice occurred. That’s where an attorney comes in. Don’t hesitate to contact a Utah criminal defense attorney if you want to appeal your felony conviction or if you’re just at the beginning of your criminal case. Get the legal experience you need on your side today.
Tags: Appeal, counsel, court, crime, Felony, law, utah
Posted in Utah Court | No Comments »
Martin Bond was recently pronounced guilty of murder, among other crimes, in one of Utah’s Fourth District courtrooms.
The Backstory
Police initially suspected that the murder victim’s (Kay Mortensen) son and daughter-in-law—Roger and Pamela Mortensen—may have been responsible for the man’s death, but the tide turned when Bond’s ex-wife and boyfriend contacted law enforcement. It turned out that Bond had actually held Roger, Pamela and Kay Mortensen hostage during a burglary and robbery that left the elder Mortensen dead.
Bond was found guilty of aggravated murder, burglary and robbery and three counts of aggravated kidnapping. Even though Bond won’t be sentenced until March, he doesn’t face the death penalty. He will likely serve life in prison without the chance of parole, but he does have the opportunity to file an appeal.
Punishment for First Degree Felonies
The six aggravated charges Bond was found guilty of are all first degree felonies, each potentially punishable by five years to life in prison. Depending on the judge, when a person is found guilty of multiple crimes he may be required to serve his sentences consecutively—one after another—or concurrently—at the same time.
Criminal homicide is aggravated murder if the person causes the death during certain other acts, including robbery, rape, sodomy and child abuse, to name a few.
Keep in mind that you don’t have to be accused of murder in order to benefit from the services of a top Utah criminal defense attorney. Keeping your reputation and freedom intact should be your priority, and an experienced attorney can help you with those goals. Talk to a Utah criminal defense attorney today.
Tags: aggravated murder, Burglary, court, crime, death penalty, Felony, Judge, murder, robbery, utah
Posted in Utah Court | No Comments »
The Utah Court of Appeals issued an opinion this week upholding the convictions of Jeff Lamb for three counts of theft of lost property, third degree felonies under Utah Code section 76-6-407. State v. Lamb, 2013 UT App 5, Case No. 20111071-CA.
In 2010, Utah Department of Agriculture Theft Inspectors received a tip of possible cattle rustling in Ephraim, Utah and went to a nearby property to investigate. Using binoculars, the inspectors looked at the cattle on Mr. Lamb’s property and found that one of the calves did not have the Lamb branding marks. Based on this observation, the inspectors entered the first and found two other cows with different ownership markings.
Mr. Lamb challenged his convictions, arguing that the three charges should have been tried in separate trials because the charges involved different owners, different kinds of cattle, and different days when Mr. Lamb obtained them. The trial court disagreed and found that the thefts were part of a common plan or scheme because they were all obtained when Mr. Lamb was driving his herd was between ranges and they were all kept in possession for a long time “without taking reasonable measures to return them.” The court of appeals agreed with the trial court.
Mr. Lamb also argued that the inspectors viewing of his field and entry onto field violated his right against unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The court of appeals disagreed with Mr. Lamb and cited the United States Supreme Court cases that have found that “open fields” are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. According to the court, “An ‘open field’ need not actually even be ‘open’ or a ‘field.’ So long as it is not part of the curtilage of a home, an ‘open field’ can be a secluded field surrounded by woods, fences, chicken wire, or embankments, and entirely out of public view or access; it can even be a cave, a still, a shed, a small concrete building, a chicken coop, a hog pen, a good pen, or an open and shared parking area adjacent to or behind an apartment building.” Lamb, 2013 UT App 5, ¶ 16.
Even though you may own a piece of property, it does not mean that there is absolute right to keep the police from entering onto it. Courts looks to whether the owner has a “reasonable expectation of privacy” in the property when considering search challenge.
If you are under investigation or have been arrested, call an experienced criminal defense attorney to help you learn about and protect your rights.
Tags: Appeal, attorney, Cattle Rustling, Constitutional Rights, court of appeals, crime, Felony, Fourth Amendment, law, lawyer, Open Fields Doctrine, police, Theft, Theft of lost property, utah, Utah Attorney
Posted in Constitutional Rights, Crimes, Evidence, Hiring a Lawyer, Legal Process, Utah Court, Utah Law, Utah Legal Definition | No Comments »
Utah law allows some defendant’s to ask for a reduction in the degree of their offense upon successfully completing probation. See Utah Code § 76-3-402. This law was in effect in 2005 when Mr. Howard Price Johnson pled guilty to unlawful sexual activity with a minor, a third degree felony, and enticing a minor, a class A misdemeanor. At the time of his plea, the prosecution agreed to not oppose a reduction in offense after Mr. Johnson completed probation.
While Mr. Johnson was on probation, the Utah Legislature amended the Utah reduction law to preclude reductions if the conviction “requires the person to register as a sex offender until the registration requirements . . . have expired.” The change in the law occurred in 2006 and Mr. Johnson asked for a reduction of his offense in 2008.
The issue in the case was what version of the law to apply to Mr. Johnson’s convictions–that is, could the court reduce the offense after completion of probation or would the court have to wait until Mr. Johnson completed his time as a registered sex offender. The Utah Supreme Court found that “the substantive right to seek a reduction in conviction vests at the time of initial sentencing.” State v. Johnson, 2012 UT 68. Effectively, the right to ask for a reduction is substantive, not procedural, so the law controlling the case was the law in place at the time of sentencing.
The court remanded the case to the district court to apply the reduction statute in place in 2005 when Mr. Johnson plead guilty.
If you or someone you know has been charged with a crime, having an experienced criminal attorney to help understand the nuances of complicated provisions of law can make a difference in the result of your case. Call a criminal defense attorney today!
Tags: Appeal, Class A misdemeanor, crime, law, Minor, Misdemeanor, utah, Utah Attorney
Posted in Crimes, Legal Process, Punishment, Utah Court, Utah Crime News, Utah Law, Utah Legal Definition | No Comments »
The Utah Supreme Court issued an opinion last week in State v. Verde that changes how trial courts will look at prior bad acts by a defendant before they are admitted at trial.
The Case
In 2005, Mr. James Eric Verde was charged with the sexual abuse of a twelve-year-old child. During the trial, the prosecution was allowed to bring in evidence of previous allegations made by other two other males against Mr. Verde. Mr. Verde was convicted and appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. In Utah, prior bad acts by a defendant are admissible so long as the prosecution can show that they are not using the evidence just to show that the defendant has a bad character and acted according to that bad character. The court of appeals found that because Mr. Verde had plead not guilty to the crime, the prosecution was allowed to bring up the prior allegations to help prove that Mr. Verde intended the sexual abuse. This is known as the “not guilty rule.”
The Utah Supreme Court Opinion
The Utah Supreme Court uniformly rejected the “not guilty rule.” The court said, “[a] not-guilty plea technically puts every element of a crime at issue” so under the “not guilty rule” prior bad acts would always be admissible to help prove some element of the crime. The court found that there needs to be more than just a not guilty plea to admit prior bad act evidence. Specifically, the court looked at what Mr. Verde’s claimed defenses were and found that he had not argued that he didn’t have the intent to commit sexual abuse–Mr. Verde had argued that he hadn’t committed the crime at all. Because of this error, the Utah Supreme Court ordered that Mr. Verde be given a new trial and the prosecution will have to try and give the trial court a different reason to admit the prior allegations of abuse.
The Doctrine of Chances
The supreme court also introduced a new way to look at prior bad acts by a defendant before admitting them at trial: the “doctrine of chances.” Under this doctrine, the more times similar events occur, the likelihood that these events are just coincidence becomes lower. So, to use the court’s example, the probability that an innocent person would be accused of sexual assault multiple times is fairly low. To help in analyzing whether prior bad acts should be admitted in a trial under the “doctrine of chances,” the supreme court told trial courts to look at: (1) what elements of the crime are disputed by the defense; (2) whether the prior acts are “roughly similar to the charged crime”; (3) whether the prior bad acts are independent of each other and the charged crime; and (4) how many times the independence acts are said to have occurred.
For the full opinion, click the link: Verde.
What this Means for Defendants
It remains to be seen how trial courts will interpret and use the doctrine of chances in future trials. Having a prior conviction or being previously accused of a criminal act can be very difficult evidence for a defendant to overcome at trial. Many defendants are not even aware that prior accusations, not just prior convictions, may be used against them in future trials. Having an experienced criminal defense attorney to make a strong argument to keep that evidence out can make a big difference!
Tags: Appeal, attorney, child abuse, court of appeals, crime, Evidence, prior crimes, sexual assault, utah, Utah Attorney
Posted in Crimes, Criminal Defense Misc, Evidence, Hiring a Lawyer, Legal Process, Utah Court, Utah Crime News, Utah Law, Utah Legal Definition | No Comments »
In the State of Utah v. Andrew Lebeaus, the Utah Court of Appeals upheld a life without parole sentence for Mr. Lebeaus’ aggravated kidnapping conviction. The court wrote: “Imposition of this sentence, usually reserved for capital offenses, is indeed troubling. Nonetheless, we must affirm.”
The facts in this case were particularly extreme. Mr. Lebeaus and his girlfriend lived together for a year and half before he suspected that she was having an affair with a mutual friend. In February 2009, Mr. Lebeaus confront his girlfriend and after he sat on her, broke her phone, hit her in the face and head, and tried to choke her, she admitted to having been with friend. Over the next hours, Mr. Lebeaus beat his girlfriend, ripped her clothes, and forced her and the dog, Sally, to get into Mr. Lebeaus’ vehicle. Mr. Lebeaus drove to the friend’s house and rammed the friend’s truck, traveling at approximately 58 miles per hour. Both the girlfriend and the dog were severely injured.
Mr. Lebeau challenged his conviction based on prosecutorial misconduct during the prosecutor’s closing argument and that a life without parole sentence was against the “interests of justice.” Although prosecutors are not allowed to express person opinions or assert personal knowledge of facts outside those presented to a jury, the court found that “when the prosecutor referred to the lack of witness credibility and the inconsistency of witness testimony, he was merely drawing inferences based on the evidence and suggesting to the jury that it do the same.”
In regards to sentencing, the usual sentence for aggravated kidnapping is fifteen years to life. But, if a defendant causes “serious bodily injury,” the presumption is life without parole and it is left to the discretion of the court to impose a lesser term “in the interests of justice.” Mr. Lebeaus argued that the sentence of life without parole denied the Board of Pardons and Parole the discretion to consider if he became rehabilitated. The sentencing options in Utah are geared towards giving the Board of Pardons the ultimate decision in how long a defendant actually serves. But, since the law specifically makes the sentencing presumption for aggravated kidnapping with serious bodily injury life without parole, the court found that trial court did not make a mistake in the sentence.
For the full opinion, click here: State v. Lebeaus
Tags: aggravated kidnapping, crime, Felony, life without parole, prison, prosecutor misconduct, utah
Posted in Crimes, Criminal Defense Misc, Punishment, Utah Court, Utah Law | No Comments »
When Roberto Roman entered the courtroom last Friday, it was to find out if he was going to spend life in prison for the shooting death of a Millard County Sheriff’s deputy. The jury, however, acquitted Roman of Josie Fox’s murder after deliberating for eight hours.
Photo: Penn State Law
Roman Previously Admitted Committing Murder
The jurors did not find the state’s evidence compelling enough to overcome the reasonable doubt that Roman had committed the murder. Roman, who the judge declared is mentally retarded, initially admitted guilt in killing Fox. During the trial, he changed his testimony, stating that it was actually Fox’s brother who had killed her and then threatened Roman if he didn’t take the blame.
The prosecution was disappointed in the verdict, of course, noting that it was easy to blame Fox’s brother since he is deceased and couldn’t speak for himself.
Innocent Until Proven Guilty
When you think of the story from Roman’s point-of-view, though, his version of the events doesn’t seem unbelievable. It’s entirely likely that if a man shoots and kills his sister, he wouldn’t hesitate to see a mentally retarded person take the blame. Remember that just because a person is arrested for a crime, it doesn’t automatically mean he’s guilty. The burden is still on the prosecution to prove—beyond a reasonable doubt—that the defendant is the most likely person to have committed the crime.
Even though no one wants to think one person could murder his sibling, it wouldn’t be the first time it’s happened. People can do unexpected things when faced with a tough situation.
Let a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Help You
If you’re in a legal bind, you need the services of a top Utah criminal defense attorney. You don’t have to be facing a murder charge to benefit from legal help. Don’t talk to the police or the prosecution. Hire an attorney who will communicate with law enforcement on your behalf and put his knowledge of criminal law to work for you.
Tags: attorney, Constitutional Rights, crime, lawyer, murder, utah
Posted in Utah Court | No Comments »
A Utah man, Cody Alan Reece, was recently found guilty by a jury of the aggravated murder of a woman who was discovered deceased in her home in July 2010.
The Backstory
The woman had been assaulted and shot in the head sometime before police discovered and arrested Cody Alan Reece in the woman’s neighborhood. During the trial, prosecutors alleged that Reece was burglarizing other homes in the vicinity and at some point entered the victim’s home, discovered her and killed her.
The Defendant’s Version
The defense offered a different version of events. Reece stated that he entered the victim’s home and found her dead after hearing a gunshot. He noted that his memory was somewhat confused due to drug and alcohol use at the time, but he denied killing the woman. He also allegedly saw an armed, unidentified tattooed-Hispanic man in the area around the same time.
His defense attorney pointed out that if Reece had been responsible for the murder, it’s unlikely he would have remained in the neighborhood, but would have put as much distance between himself and the scene of the crime as possible.
Penalties for Aggravated Murder are Severe
Unfortunately for Reece, the jury agreed with the prosecution and found him guilty of aggravated murder and aggravated burglary, which are both first degree felonies. Aggravated murder, when it is a noncapital felony, is punishable by life in prison without parole or a minimum 25 years in prison up to life in prison. Reece is scheduled to be sentenced by the court in September.
Since no one else was present during the crime but the victim and the assailant, it is impossible to know for certain how the events unfolded. Reece may truly have seen an armed person fleeing the scene, but the jury in his case didn’t believe his scenario.
Let a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney Help You
You never know how your case will turn out for certain, but having a Utah criminal defense attorney represent you can improve your chances of an amicable solution. An experienced attorney will help you understand the consequences of any plea deals and will be with you through your entire legal experience. If you are charged with any crime, you can benefit from the services of a Utah criminal defense attorney.
Tags: aggravated burglary, aggravated murder, crime, Felony, murder, utah
Posted in Utah Court | No Comments »
The Utah Court of Appeals recently filed a memorandum decision regarding an appeal in the case of State v. Noor, involving a man convicted of burglary, forcible sexual abuse and lewdness.
Photo: Malik
The man, Osman Mohammad Noor, was appealing the district court jury’s decision to convict him on the various charges, based on his assertion that there was insufficient evidence presented showing the required intent to commit the crimes of which he was accused.
What the State Said Happened
Noor’s conviction came about after the events that took place in May 2009. Noor allegedly attempted to force himself on the manager of his apartment building, supposedly putting his mouth and hands places they shouldn’t have been. The woman called 911 and Noor was arrested.
On appeal, Noor raised issues that he had not brought up during the trial. The Court of Appeals is pretty picky about not reviewing issues on appeal that weren’t preserved during the original district court trial. In Noor’s case, he didn’t offer any witnesses as a defense, nor did his attorney bring up the topics at that time that he now wanted discussed.
In its memorandum decision, the Court determined that Noor didn’t present an insufficiency of evidence concern at the trial, so they refused to consider it at this time. Noor’s convictions have been upheld by the Court of Appeals.
You Need a Utah Criminal Defense Attorney
This is one of many situations that show how important it is to have a top Utah criminal defense attorney represent you during every aspect of your case, particularly if you end up appealing a decision to the Court of Appeals. An experienced criminal defense attorney will do all within his power to help your case reach a resolution that makes sense.
Tags: Appeal, Burglary, court of appeals, Lewdness, noor, sexual abuse, State, utah
Posted in Utah Court | No Comments »
