State v. Brady
300 P.3d 778
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Brady pled guilty to communications fraud and racketeering (second degree felonies) and received 36 months of probation with restitution of $479,123.18.
- The State filed an order to show cause on June 14, 2011 alleging Brady paid nothing toward restitution.
- A probation-revocation hearing occurred on September 9, 2011; Brady admitted violation but described job-search efforts and financial obligations.
- The trial court found Brady’s mitigating evidence inadequate to show a good-faith effort and revoked probation, reinstating his prison sentence.
- Brady appeals arguing the court abused its discretion (mitigating evidence, willfulness finding, alternative punishments) and that due process requirements were not met.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse discretion by not considering mitigating evidence? | Brady | Brady | No; court considered mitigating evidence but found it insufficient |
| Was there an explicit willfulness finding required for revocation? | Brady | Brady | Implicit finding of willfulness permissible; explicit finding not required |
| Should alternative punishments have been considered before reinstating prison? | Brady | Brady | Bearden-based alternatives not required where willfulness determined |
| Did the hearing meet due-process minimums in probation-revocation context? | Brady | Brady | Yes; Brady had opportunity to speak and present evidence, and record supported decision |
| Were the trial court’s findings of fact adequate? | Brady | Brady | Yes; oral findings in the transcript sufficed to review the decision |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Orr, 2005 UT 92 (2005 UT 92) (probation revocation requires hearings and factual findings; can include implicit willfulness findings)
- Maestas, 997 P.2d 314 (2000 UT App 22) (revocation requires preponderance showing willfulness in not paying restitution)
- Archuleta, 812 P.2d 80 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (token payments can show willfulness; bearden framework considerations)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (requires inquiry into reasons for failure to pay restitution; touchstone for willfulness)
- State v. Brooks, 271 P.3d 831 (2012 UT App 34) (implicit willfulness findings can sustain revocation; sentencing comments may qualify)