State v. Dana, 246 P.3d 756

In July 2007 Dana was charged with a third-degree felony for failure to register as a sex offender under Utah Code 77-27-21.5(16)(a)(i).
Dana pleaded guilty to a class A misdemeanor under Utah Code 77-27-21.5(16)(a)(ii), which also carries a 90-day minimum jail term and probation.
The district court sentenced Dana to one year in jail but suspended all jail time and placed him on 18 months of probation.
The State appealed, alleging that suspending the statute-mandated jail term violated the minimum jail requirement.
The issue involves whether the sentence was illegal under Rule 22(e) and statutory interpretation; the court reviews de novo.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sentence violated the mandatory jail term	State argues statute requires 90 days jail; suspension voids sentence.	Dana contends district court properly imposed a sentence consistent with statute.	The sentence was illegal; reversed and remanded to impose a minimum 90-day jail term without suspension.

State v. Thorkelson, 84 P.3d 854 (2004 UT App) (rule 22(e) review limited to patent or manifest illegality)
State v. Yazzie, 203 P.3d 984 (2009 UT) (definition of illegal sentence; statutory compliance)
State v. Babbel, 813 P.2d 86 (Utah 1991) (interpretation of illegal sentence when statutory provisions violated)
State v. Jeffries, 217 P.3d 265 (2009 UT) (statutory reading in harmony with related statutes)
State v. Candedo, 232 P.3d 1008 (2010 UT) (expands illegal sentence doctrine to constitutional challenges)
State v. Telford, 48 P.3d 228 (2002 UT) (distinguishes patent illegality from ordinary errors)