State v. Kropf, 360 P.3d 1

Background

In Sept. 2010 Robert C. Kropf pleaded guilty to third-degree stalking and related charges; the court sentenced him to concurrent 0–5 year terms and fines and did not enter a permanent criminal stalking injunction at sentencing.
Utah Code § 76-5-106.5 (2008) treats a stalking conviction as an "application" for a permanent criminal stalking injunction and provides that "a permanent criminal stalking injunction shall be issued by the court without a hearing unless the defendant requests a hearing."
In April 2013 (shortly before Kropf’s parole), the victim moved to reopen the case to obtain the mandatory permanent criminal stalking injunction, asserting clerical error under Utah R. Crim. P. 30, an illegal sentence under Utah R. Crim. P. 22, or relief under Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b).
The district court held a hearing, concluded the 2008 stalking statute mandates issuance of a permanent injunction upon conviction (hearing only if requested), treated the omission as correctable (rule 22 and/or rule 30), and issued the injunction; Kropf appealed raising jurisdiction, double jeopardy, and due process challenges.
The Court of Appeals analyzed statutory text and legislative amendments, held the injunction is mandatory on conviction (with limited discretion only as to its terms), concluded rule 22 authorized correction of the illegal sentence, and affirmed, rejecting Kropf’s constitutional claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State / Petitioner)	Defendant's Argument (Kropf)	Held
Whether the court had jurisdiction to reopen sentence to impose injunction	§76-5-106.5 makes injunction mandatory; omission rendered sentence illegal and rule 22 permits correction at any time	Court lost jurisdiction after final judgment; omission was discretionary (no clerical error) so rule 30/22 inapplicable	Held: rule 22 authorizes correction because the injunction is a statutory mandatory term omitted from the sentence (illegal sentence)
Whether §76-5-106.5 requires mandatory issuance of a permanent criminal stalking injunction on conviction	"Shall be issued" is mandatory; hearing right only affects timing/terms	"Application" language and hearing provision show injunction is discretionary pending hearing	Held: statute, read as whole (and clarified by 2012 amendment), mandates issuance on conviction; court has discretion only over injunction terms
Whether imposing the injunction violated Double Jeopardy	Injunction is a mandatory part of sentence rather than a new punishment; correction of illegal sentence is permitted	Addition of injunction after sentencing upsets legitimate finality expectation and adds punishment	Held: No double jeopardy; court corrected an illegal sentence and retained jurisdiction to do so; defendant had no legitimate expectation in an illegal (incomplete) sentence
Whether Due Process required additional notice or an evidentiary hearing	Court provided a hearing after motion to reopen; defendant had opportunity to be heard and to address terms	Defendant lacked notice at conviction of injunction and was denied an evidentiary hearing to contest imposition	Held: Due process satisfied — defendant received timely notice of the reopening and opportunity to be heard; no entitlement to an evidentiary hearing to avoid a statutorily-mandated injunction (hearing addresses terms if requested)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Candedo, 232 P.3d 1008 (Utah 2010) (procedural questions and rule 22 authority discussed)
State v. Johnson, 224 P.3d 720 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation standard)
State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (double jeopardy and finality principles)
State v. Yazzie, 203 P.3d 984 (Utah 2009) (illegal sentence doctrine and court jurisdiction to correct)
State v. Harker, 240 P.3d 780 (Utah 2010) (statutory construction rules)
Board of Educ. of Granite Sch. Dist. v. Salt Lake County, 659 P.2d 1030 (Utah 1983) (interpretation of "shall" as mandatory)
Aaron & Morey Bonds v. Third Dist. Court, 156 P.3d 801 (Utah 2007) (statutory term usage guidance)
Marion Energy, Inc. v. KFJ Ranch P'ship, 267 P.3d 863 (Utah 2011) (plain-language approach to legislative intent)
O'Keefe v. Utah State Ret. Bd., 956 P.2d 279 (Utah 1998) (plain-language statutory construction)
Salt Lake City v. Almansor, 325 P.3d 847 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (harmlessness/non-prejudice in procedural context)