State v. Bunker, 361 P.3d 155

Jess Amos Bunker was convicted of four counts of forcible sexual abuse (second-degree felonies) and one count of attempted bail jumping (class A misdemeanor) and appealed his sentences.
Bunker argued the trial court abused its sentencing discretion by ordering prison time (instead of probation) and by imposing consecutive sentences without making explicit findings on mitigating factors.
He identified several alleged unconsidered factors: lack of criminal history, distinguished military career, psychosexual evaluation showing low risk of reoffending, and available family support and treatment.
The trial court stated it had read the presentence investigation report, the psychosexual evaluation, and documents about Bunker’s military service, and it heard family testimony and defense counsel’s arguments covering these matters.
The court of appeals assumed (without deciding) the factors were legally relevant but found the record showed the trial court had reviewed the materials and therefore could be presumed to have considered them.
The court affirmed, holding that Bunker did not meet his burden to show the trial court failed to consider legally relevant factors or otherwise abused its sentencing discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing prison rather than probation	State: sentencing within discretion given the facts and factors	Bunker: court failed to consider mitigating factors (military service, lack of record, low risk, family support)	Court: No abuse; record shows materials were considered and court’s weighing is entitled to deference
Whether consecutive sentences were improper for lack of on-record findings	State: no statute or necessity requiring explicit findings here; presumption court considered materials	Bunker: court needed explicit findings on aggravating/mitigating circumstances	Court: No explicit findings required; silence alone insufficient to show failure to consider; affirmed

State v. Epling, 2011 UT App 229 (trial courts afford wide latitude in sentencing; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. Helms, 2002 UT 12 (trial court not always required to make specific written findings; defendant bears burden to show failure to consider factors)
State v. Moreno, 2005 UT App 200 (requirement to state findings on record applies when statute or specific sentencing-deviation context mandates it)
Patterson v. Patterson, 2011 UT 68 (appellate courts exercise discretion on preservation issues)
438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 2004 UT 72 (preservation requires opportunity for trial court to rule)
State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432 (appellate review will not overturn reasonable sentencing views of trial court)