State v. Abelon, 369 P.3d 113

Background

Abelon was charged with six counts of sexual exploitation of a minor after ICAC agents found pornographic images and six videos of children on his laptop; a second laptop was encrypted.
Abelon repeatedly complained about his court‑appointed public defender and requested substitution on four occasions; the district court denied each request after hearings in which counsel and his supervisor described preparation efforts.
At the final pretrial hearing Abelon filed a handwritten pleading seeking new counsel and other relief; the court asked whether new facts had arisen and Abelon said his complaints were the same as before.
At trial the parties stipulated that the six videos were child pornography; Abelon’s defense argued the State could not prove he viewed the files. The jury convicted him on all six counts.
At sentencing Abelon objected to multiple alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report (PSR); the State acknowledged some problems and asked the court to ignore PSR material inconsistent with trial evidence, but the court did not make on‑the‑record findings resolving Abelon’s objections.
The court sentenced Abelon to concurrent terms (one to fifteen years, suspended), 36 months probation, 365 days in jail (with credit), a $1,000 fine, and left restitution open for 12 months; Abelon appealed.

Issues

Issue	Abelon’s Argument	State’s Argument	Held
Whether the court adequately inquired into defendant’s repeated requests for substitute appointed counsel	Abelon argued the court failed to reasonably investigate his dissatisfaction at the fourth request and should have appointed new counsel	The State argued the court had previously and adequately explored the complaints and the fourth request raised no new facts	The court affirmed: no abuse of discretion — the final request rested on the same issues already addressed, and the court reasonably declined further inquiry
Whether the district court complied with Utah Code § 77‑18‑1(6)(a) by resolving PSR objections on the record	Abelon argued the court failed to resolve factual inaccuracies in the PSR with specific on‑the‑record findings as required	The State conceded some factual problems and asked the court to disregard PSR items inconsistent with trial evidence	The court reversed in part and remanded: the court erred by not making on‑the‑record determinations of accuracy and relevance under § 77‑18‑1(6)(a); remand required for compliance
Whether the failure to secure statutory PSR findings requires resentencing	Abelon argued sentencing was affected by inaccurate PSR material and sought resentencing	The State argued the record shows the court could and should ignore inconsistent PSR material and that sentencing was not materially affected	The court declined to order resentencing as a matter of course, finding no basis on the record to conclude the sentence was materially affected, but allowed the district court to revise the sentence on remand if resolution of objections alters its view
Whether appellate ineffective‑assistance claim supports relief for failure to secure PSR findings	Abelon asserted trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting explicit § 77‑18‑1(6)(a) findings	The State did not press ineffective‑assistance as an independent basis when remand could cure the procedural error	The court did not resolve the ineffective‑assistance claim; remand ordered for statutory compliance and the court left open that counsel‑error arguments could be considered if needed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Waterfield, 322 P.3d 1194 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (trial court’s duty to investigate defendant’s complaints about counsel)
State v. Pursifell, 746 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct. App. 1987) (scope of court’s obligation to inquire into requests for substitution of counsel)
State v. Veteto, 6 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2000) (standard of review for statutory duties about PSR objections)
State v. Monroe, 345 P.3d 755 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (requirements for on‑the‑record findings resolving PSR factual objections)
State v. Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (remand where court failed to resolve PSR objections as required by statute)
State v. Maroney, 94 P.3d 295 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (district court may revise sentence after resolving PSR inaccuracies on remand)