Holste v. State, 427 P.3d 274

In 2006 Holste pled guilty in Idaho to lewd conduct with a minor; Idaho withheld entry of judgment and placed him on probation conditioned on sex-offender registration.
Holste registered in Idaho and complied with probation; in 2010 Idaho set aside his guilty plea and dismissed the case with prejudice, but he concedes Idaho still requires him to register.
Holste moved to Utah around 2010, received notice from Utah DOC that he must register, and complied by registering in Utah.
In 2016 Holste sued for a declaratory judgment that he is not required to register in Utah; the Department moved to dismiss, arguing Utah law requires his registration.
The district court granted the Department’s motion and dismissed Holste’s suit; Holste appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Holste must register under Utah law	Holste: because his Idaho case was dismissed, he was not "convicted by any other jurisdiction," so § 77-41-105(1) does not apply and he need not register	Department: Utah law defines "sex offender" to include those required to register by another state and § 77-41-105(3)(a) requires all "offenders" to register	Court: Affirmed dismissal — § 77-41-105(3)(a) requires all "offenders" to register, and Holste concedes he is an "offender"

Meritage Cos. v. Gross, 409 P.3d 111 (Utah Ct. App.) (statutory interpretation standards)
State v. Jeffries, 217 P.3d 265 (Utah 2009) (avoid statutory surplusage in construction)
State v. Kropf, 360 P.3d 1 (Utah Ct. App.) (appellate court may affirm on any correct basis supported by record)