State v. Lindsey, 340 P.3d 176

Lindsey pleaded guilty to third-degree felony child abuse (reduced from second-degree) and faced sentencing; plea included prosecutor's promise to recommend county jail (not prison) if Lindsey obtained and used a presentence investigation (PSI) at sentencing.
AP&P scheduled a PSI interview; Lindsey arrived late and AP&P could not complete the interview that day. The court offered a continuance conditioned on Lindsey being held in custody until sentencing to assure completion.
Lindsey waived the PSI at the first hearing to avoid jail and elected to proceed without it; the court rescheduled sentencing for two weeks. On the eve of the second date Lindsey sought a continuance to obtain a PSI, but the prosecutor withdrew his stipulation because the victim’s family had already traveled to court.
At sentencing the prosecutor declined to recommend jail (arguing the recommendation was conditioned on use of a PSI). The prosecutor read three letters from non-victims (neighbor, babysitter, crisis-center rep.). Lindsey objected to late notice but did not request a continuance or proffer specific rebuttal evidence.
The court sentenced Lindsey to an indeterminate term of 0–5 years in prison and explained that the court considered the family statements and the neighbor’s letter important. Lindsey appealed, challenging denial of the PSI continuance, an alleged plea-breach by the prosecutor, and admission of the non-victims’ letters.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lindsey)	Held
1) Denial of continuance to obtain PSI	Court has discretion to deny a continuance; PSI not mandatory	Denial prevented court from having legally relevant information and thus was an abuse of discretion	Affirmed: no abuse—Lindsey waived PSI and delayed request until it would unfairly burden victim/family; court lawfully exercised discretion
2) Prosecutor breached plea by not recommending jail	No breach because prosecutor’s promise was conditioned on completion/use of PSI, which Lindsey failed to obtain	Prosecutor promised to recommend jail regardless; failure to recommend breached plea and violated due process	Affirmed: no breach—condition (PSI) not satisfied, so prosecutor’s obligation never triggered; no plain error shown
3) Court considered letters from non-victims	Court may consider any reasonably reliable, relevant information at sentencing; letters were relevant and admissible for sentencing purposes	Letters were inflammatory, late, and deprived Lindsey of opportunity to rebut; court abused discretion	Affirmed: no abuse—statute and precedent allow broad consideration; Lindsey showed no specific prejudice or missing rebuttal evidence

McClendon v. State, 611 P.2d 728 (Utah 1980) (sentence should reflect defendant background, crime, and societal interests)
Dunn v. State, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error review framework)
Garfield v. State, 552 P.2d 129 (Utah 1976) (prosecutor promises forming part of plea must be fulfilled)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea agreements require performance of prosecutorial promises)
Howell v. State, 707 P.2d 115 (Utah 1985) (trial courts may consider a wide range of reasonably reliable, relevant evidence at sentencing)
Creviston v. State, 646 P.2d 750 (Utah 1982) (defendant must show materiality/admissibility of proffered testimony when seeking continuance)