State v. Brooks
2012 UT App 34
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Brooks appeals a district court order revoking and restarting probation and imposing a minimum 90 days in jail.
- Brooks pleaded guilty in 2009 to unlawful sexual activity with a minor; sentence included a suspended term, 101 days in jail, and 36 months of probation.
- In 2010 AP&P filed an affidavit alleging probation violations: noncooperation and failure to complete NUCCC, supported by a detailed probable cause statement about misconduct.
- A March 10, 2010 hearing resulted in Brooks admitting the second violation; first violation was dismissed; the court did not expressly find willfulness at that time.
- At the March 24 sentencing, the district court revoked and restarted probation, imposed 90 days minimum reform jail time, allowed credit for time served, and considered Group A sex offender conditions; Brooks challenged the process on appeal.
- The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding no reversible error and that Brooks was given opportunity to speak and mitigate; any alleged errors were invited or not plain error, and counsel’s performance was not deficient overall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a proper hearing and findings before revoking/restarting probation? | Brooks argues revocation required explicit hearing and willfulness findings. | State contends the order was a modification/extension with adequate hearing and implicit willfulness. | No reversible error; implicit findings and hearing satisfied statutory requirements. |
| Was Brooks denied an adequate opportunity to speak or present mitigating evidence? | Brooks claims the court failed to offer a meaningful opportunity to speak and present mitigating evidence. | State asserts Brooks had ample opportunity to respond and present letters and testimony. | Brooks was afforded ample opportunity to be heard and present mitigating information. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peterson, 869 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (abuse of discretion standard for probation decisions)
- Maestas, 997 P.2d 314 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (willfulness defined as lack of bona fide compliance efforts)
- Wanosik, 79 P.3d 937 (Utah: Supreme Court 2003) (must raise mitigating evidence opportunity; court must raise issue)
- Cooper, 261 P.3d 653 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (invited error; failure to object may bar plain error review)
- Thurston, 781 P.2d 1296 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (sentencing discretion; recommendations not binding)