State v. Irey, 405 P.3d 876

Appellant Michael Shaun Irey was convicted of operating/possessing a clandestine laboratory (first-degree felony), distribution of a controlled substance (third-degree felony), and attempted aggravated assault (class A misdemeanor); he received concurrent sentences: 5-years-to-life, 0–5 years, and 0–365 days.
At sentencing defense counsel identified alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report (PSI): overstated substance-related arrests, conflicting statements about prior probations, and an assessment of attitude/remorse.
The district court acknowledged the errors and asked if a new PSI was desired; defense counsel declined and asked to proceed after making corrections on the record; the State agreed to reduce Irey’s criminal history score.
The district court relied on two aggravating factors (≈$90,000 property damage from a fire caused by the lab; threatening a potential buyer with a gun) and one mitigating factor (youthful offender) and denied probation, imposing prison terms.
The State conceded the district court failed to make on-the-record resolutions of the contested PSI items and agreed a limited remand was appropriate; the appellate court ordered remand limited to resolving PSI inaccuracies but affirmed sentencing in all other respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court satisfied statutory duty to resolve contested PSI inaccuracies on the record	Irey: court failed to state on the record its determinations regarding contested PSI items	State: district court considered objections and Irey declined a new PSI; remand limited to resolving inaccuracies is sufficient	Court: remand for limited purpose to resolve PSI inaccuracies; sentencing otherwise unaffected because court considered objections and did not rely on inaccuracies
Whether denial of probation and imposition of prison was an abuse of discretion	Irey: court improperly weighed aggravating vs mitigating factors and should have granted probation	State: sentencing discretion broad; denial appropriate given aggravating facts	Court: no abuse of discretion; denial of probation upheld and sentence affirmed (except for limited PSI remand)

State v. Neilson, 391 P.3d 398 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for sentencing decisions)
State v. Valdovinos, 82 P.3d 1167 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing)
State v. Rhodes, 818 P.2d 1048 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (probation is discretionary; defendant not entitled to probation)
State v. Samulski, 387 P.3d 595 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (review for correctness whether trial court resolved contested PSI information on record)
State v. Monroe, 345 P.3d 755 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (importance of correcting PSI because it follows defendant through the system)
State v. Moreno, 113 P.3d 992 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (statutory requirement to state rationale when selecting among specified mandatory minima)