State v. Johnson
276 P.3d 1254
Utah Ct. App.2012Background
- Johnson, convicted of securities fraud in March 2007, was on probation requiring verifiable full-time employment; the 2008 Order of Clarification approved a part-time arrangement with Goodman verified by affidavits.
- The court approved Goodman as verifier in 2008, basing compliance on a May 2010 verification affidavit describing Johnson as a 1099 contractor earning $15/hour for 20–30 hours/week.
- AP&P issued multiple progress reports; an August 2010 hearing found a probation violation for failing to provide verification of full-time employment.
- Agent testified Johnson did not produce pay stubs, 1099s, contracts, or other verification; Johnson claimed verification relied on Goodman’s affidavit.
- Volunteer testified about Johnson/Goodman and Homeowners Legal Defense; concerns were raised about the nexus and legitimacy of the verification.
- Trial court revoked Johnson’s probation and reinstated it with 60 days in jail.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a probation violation based on lack of verifiable employment? | Johnson relied on the 2008 Order of Clarification that verification could come from Goodman. | AP&P argued Johnson failed to verify full-time employment despite requests. | Yes; the court's finding was not clearly erroneous. |
| Was the revocation/reinstatement of probation proper given willfulness considerations? | Johnson argues the failure was not willful and relied on the Clarification order. | AP&P maintained willfulness given avoidance of verification requests. | Yes; trial court did not abuse its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Maestas, 997 P.2d 314 (Utah Ct.App. 2000) (facts underlying probation determinations reviewed for clear error)
- State v. Peterson, 869 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct.App. 1994) (willfulness and credibility in probation violations; deference to trial court)
- State v. Jameson, 800 P.2d 798 (Utah 1990) (discretion in probation rulings; factual findings given deference)
- State v. Hodges, 798 P.2d 270 (Utah Ct.App. 1990) (willfulness standard in probation violation cases; safety concerns)
- State v. Orr, 127 P.3d 1213 (Utah 2005) (whether willfulness applies to extension of probation for restitution issues)
- Archuleta, 812 P.2d 80 (Utah Ct.App. 1991) (definition of willfulness not equating to intent)