State v. Atkinson, 397 P.3d 874

Dennis Rolland Atkinson pled guilty to five third-degree felonies (failure to register as a sex offender, identity fraud, forgery, and two counts of DWI) arising from offenses between Sept. 2014 and May 2015.
He has a 15-year criminal record with frequent parole/probation violations; crimes were committed while on probation.
AP&P recommended prison terms of 0–5 years for each count; the district court imposed four concurrent 0–5 year terms and one consecutive 0–5 year term.
At sentencing Atkinson presented evidence of physical disabilities, substance abuse (claimed self-medication for pain), and family hardship (fiancée with cancer).
Atkinson argued on appeal that the district court erred by (1) failing to apply the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act to require accommodations at sentencing and (2) improperly weighing mitigating (disability, substance abuse, family) and aggravating factors when imposing prison.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ADA/Rehab Act required accommodations altering sentence	State: court need not apply ADA/Rehab Act absent preservation	Atkinson: his disabilities caused the crimes and the court was required to accommodate (shorter sentence, jail not prison, or probation)	Not preserved for appeal because Atkinson never raised ADA/Rehab Act below; court therefore did not reach the merits
Whether court improperly weighed mitigating vs. aggravating factors	State: sentencing discretion was properly exercised given criminal history and violations	Atkinson: court should have given more weight to substance abuse, disabilities, and family circumstances and sentenced non-prison	No abuse of discretion; sentencing within statutory limits and evidence of mitigation was presented and thus presumed considered

State v. Epling, 262 P.3d 440 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (sentencing reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Wanosik, 79 P.3d 937 (Utah 2003) (distinguishing review standards for sentencing legal issues)
State v. Kozlov, 276 P.3d 1207 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (preservation requirement for appellate review)
State v. Kennedy, 354 P.3d 775 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (must present legal basis, not just facts, to preserve issue)
State v. Jaramillo, 372 P.3d 34 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (standards for disturbing a sentence)
State v. Moa, 282 P.3d 985 (Utah 2012) (assumes sentencing court considered mitigating evidence presented)
State v. Nichols, 370 P.3d 575 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (same presumption regarding consideration of mitigation)
State v. Miera, 345 P.3d 761 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (abuse of discretion standard: reversal only if no reasonable person could adopt trial court's view)
State v. McClendon, 611 P.2d 728 (Utah 1980) (sentence should fit defendant and serve societal interests)