State v. Lawson, 2018 UT App 186

In 2001 William M. Lawson pled guilty to aggravated sexual abuse of a child; the plea agreement amended the information to allege he "occupied a position of special trust" (stepfather) rather than a prior sexual-offense conviction.
At the time of the 1996 offense, Utah law expressly excluded stepparents from the definition of a "position of special trust." The amended statute (by sentencing time) later included stepparents.
Aggravated sexual abuse (first-degree) carries an indeterminate term of five years to life; non‑aggravated sexual abuse (second-degree) carries a 1–15 year term. A prior-sex-offense aggravator would have triggered an additional mandatory consecutive minimum term.
Lawson moved under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) to correct an allegedly illegal sentence, arguing his plea admitted only facts supporting a second-degree offense, so the five‑to‑life sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.
The State and district court treated the motion as a disguised challenge to the conviction (waiver/plea validity). The appellate court noted relief under rule 22(e) can be appropriate where a legal mistake produced an illegal sentence, but the record lacked the plea-colloquy transcript or other evidence to show the parties or court mistakenly applied the post‑offense statute.
Because Lawson did not reconstruct the record or provide affidavits and the transcript was unavailable, the court presumed regularity and affirmed the denial of his rule 22(e) motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Lawson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Lawson's 5‑to‑life sentence is illegal because he only admitted elements of a second‑degree offense	Plea admitted only second‑degree elements (stepparent was not "special trust" in 1996), so sentence exceeds statutory maximum	The claim challenges plea validity/conviction and is not cognizable as a rule 22(e) sentence challenge	Court affirmed denial: record inadequate to show sentence was illegal under rule 22(e)
Whether rule 22(e) can remedy a sentence resulting from a mistake of law about the applicable statute	Rule 22(e) may apply if a sentencing‑time mistake of law produced an illegal sentence	Rule 22(e) should not be used to relitigate plea validity; State argued plea waiver may bar relief	Court acknowledged rule 22(e) can apply for legal mistakes but cannot decide here due to missing record
Whether absence of the plea transcript requires presumption of regularity or reconstruction	Lawson argued sentence was illegal but offered no transcript or affidavits reconstructing plea	State relied on presumption that missing record supports trial court's action	Court held missing transcript and lack of evidentiary reconstruction triggers presumption of regularity; defendant failed to rebut it

State v. Candedo, 232 P.3d 1008 (Utah 2010) (rule 22(e) permits appellate relief for illegal sentences but claims must be narrowly circumscribed)
State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (illegal sentence due to statutory change entitled defendant to resentencing where State bore risk of mistake)
State v. Bryant, 290 P.3d 33 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (ex post facto application of a statute at sentencing can render a sentence illegal and warrant vacatur)
State v. Pritchett, 69 P.3d 1278 (Utah 2003) (when appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, appellate courts presume regularity of trial proceedings)
State v. Linden, 761 P.2d 1386 (Utah 1988) (missing portions of record are presumed to support the trial court's actions)