State v. Gutierrez
344 P.3d 163
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Sacramento Gutierrez pleaded guilty to attempted aggravated assault (Class A misdemeanor) in 2010 and was placed on Assault Probation, which included a no-contact condition with the victim (Victim).
- Gutierrez violated the Assault Probation multiple times; the court revoked and reinstated probation previously, each time keeping the same terms.
- In February 2013 Gutierrez pleaded no contest to third-degree felony vehicle theft, was sentenced to a suspended 0–5 year term and placed on Theft Probation for 36 months. At that hearing the court revoked and reinstated the Assault Probation to run concurrently "with the terms and conditions of [the Theft Probation]" and ordered AP&P to supervise both with the same terms.
- On May 25, 2013 Gutierrez remained at a dance hall after learning Victim was present; Victim called police and Gutierrez was arrested. The State filed identical affidavits alleging violations of both probations (including no-contact and failure to provide current address). The address allegation was later stricken.
- At a three-day revocation hearing the court found Gutierrez violated the no-contact order, revoked probation, and imposed the previously suspended sentences. Gutierrez did not argue at the hearing that the no-contact term did not apply to the Theft Probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the no-contact condition applied to the Theft Probation | State: the court properly treated both probations as having the same terms and revoked accordingly | Gutierrez: the Theft Probation’s written minute order and AP&P report omitted any no-contact condition, so it did not apply | Court: the February order expressly made the Assault terms run concurrently and required AP&P to supervise both with the same terms, so no-contact applied to the Theft Probation |
| Whether Gutierrez preserved challenge to application of no-contact term | State: Gutierrez failed to preserve this specific argument at the revocation hearing | Gutierrez: he raises the argument on appeal under plain error review | Court: claim was not preserved; plain error not shown because any defect was not obvious to the district court absent protest |
| Whether the no-contact condition was too vague/unexpressed to be enforceable | State: terms were sufficiently clear by the court’s concurrent-terms order | Gutierrez: due process requires probation terms be expressly stated and definite | Court: Gutierrez failed to carry the burden; the court’s order was sufficiently clear and he did not meaningfully develop the vagueness argument on appeal |
| Whether revocation and imposition of suspended sentence was erroneous | State: revocation justified by repeated violations, including the no-contact breach | Gutierrez: revocation based on a term not belonging to Theft Probation or unexpressed term was error | Court: no reversible error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Waterfield, 322 P.3d 1194 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (plain error requires a harmful error obvious to the district court)
- 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc., 99 P.3d 801 (Utah 2004) (issues must be presented to the district court to be preserved for appeal)
- State v. Denney, 776 P.2d 91 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (sentences must be clear to avoid confusion and injustice)
- United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1926) (criminal sentences should reveal the court’s intent with fair certainty)