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.
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At a sentencing/revocation hearing in December 2009, Vaughn’s probation was revoked, and he was sentenced to two consecutive one-year sentences at the Utah State Prison.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.











