State v. Love
332 P.3d 383
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Ceazar Cedric Love pleaded guilty in two cases in January 2012; on March 13, 2012 the district court imposed prison terms but stayed execution and placed him on probation that included a specified jail term in Iron County Jail.
- While serving in jail in June 2012, Love spat at a correctional officer and later pleaded guilty to propelling a substance at an officer.
- The June jail incident prompted the district court in December 2012 to revoke Love’s probation in the two original cases and activate the previously stayed prison sentences.
- Love appealed, arguing (1) revocation was improper because the violation occurred before his probation had commenced (he claimed he was simply serving part of the suspended incarceration), and (2) insufficient evidence showed a willful probation violation because he did not understand he was on probation while in jail.
- At the revocation hearing defense counsel urged the court to restart probation so Love could be supervised “on the outs” but did not specifically argue that probation had not commenced or that revocation violated due process; thus the court found the issues were not preserved for appeal.
- The court reviewed preservation, plain error, and ineffective-assistance doctrines and held the judgments clearly showed probation (including the jail term) commenced at sentencing, so counsel’s failure to raise the novel argument was not ineffective and no plain error occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Love's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether revocation was invalid because the violation occurred before probation commenced | Love: He was serving part of the suspended prison term, not probation, so probation had not begun when he spat at the officer | State: Judgments placed him on probation at sentencing and expressly stayed execution of sentence subject to probation conditions (including jail time) | Held: Probation began at sentencing; jail time was a condition of probation, so revocation was proper |
| Whether evidence supported a finding of willful violation | Love: He didn’t understand he was on probation while in jail; thus the act was not a willful violation | State: Probation terms were clear and included the jail term; Love had notice of probationary conditions | Held: Notice was adequate; willfulness argument not preserved and no plain error found |
| Whether issues were preserved for appeal | Love: Counsel’s statements allegedly raised the commencement/notice arguments | State: Counsel’s arguments requested a second chance and did not raise due process or commencement issues | Held: Arguments were not specifically raised before the trial court and therefore not preserved |
| Whether review is warranted under plain error or ineffective assistance doctrines | Love: Requests plain-error review and asserts counsel was ineffective for not raising commencement/notice arguments | State: The legal theory was novel; judgments were clear; counsel not ineffective; no obvious legal error | Held: No plain error; counsel not ineffective because the law was not clearly settled and judgments plainly put Love on probation at sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (preservation factors for appellate review)
- State v. Low, 192 P.3d 867 (Utah 2008) (issue must be clearly raised to preserve it for appeal)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error and ineffective-assistance standards)
- State v. Dean, 95 P.3d 276 (Utah 2004) (law must be clear to show error should have been obvious to trial court)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Ruesga, 851 P.2d 1229 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (due process requires probation conditions be sufficiently clear to give notice of violations)