State v. Moa
2012 UT 28
| Utah | 2012Background
- Two consolidated cases arising from separate shooting incidents involving Charles Moa.
- First Case: Moa pleaded no contest to a third degree felony; he moved to withdraw the plea and stipulated it complied with Rule 11; district court denied withdrawal motions; appellate court reviewed for plain error due to preservation issue.
- Second Case: Moa pled guilty to two felonies and a misdemeanor; district court imposed consecutive sentences; presentence report included extensive prior conduct; prosecutor made statements at sentencing; Moa challenged the consecutiveness on appeal.
- Court granted certiorari to resolve (1) plain error preservation invited error in the First Case and (2) whether consecutive sentences in the Second Case were proper without reliance on improper information.
- Court held that Moa invited the district court’s error by stipulating Rule 11 compliance, so plain error review is unnecessary for the First Case; and in the Second Case there is no evidence the district court relied on improper prosecutor statements, so consecutive sentences were proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Moa invite error to preclude plain error review in the First Case? | Moa argued district court failed to inform element; sought plain error review. | State contends stipulation invited any error. | Yes; invited error precludes plain error review. |
| Whether the First Case plea withdrawal ruling was correct independent of plain error review? | Moa asserts lack of Rule 11 compliance. | State asserts waiver via stipulation. | Court need not reach merits; invited error controls. |
| Did the court properly affirm the Second Case consecutive sentences given no evidence of reliance on improper information? | Moa argued improper prosecutor statements influenced sentencing. | State argued no affirmative evidence of reliance; sentencing factors permissible. | Yes; no evidence of reliance; sentences upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Howell, 707 P.2d 115 (Utah 1985) (reliance and mitigating factors in sentencing; heightened review requires evidence of reliance)
- Helms v. State, 40 P.3d 626 (Utah 2002) (reliance and sentencing factors; not presuming consideration of improper information)
- Geukgeuzian v. State, 86 P.3d 742 (Utah 2004) (invited error when defense counsel affirms complete elements instruction)
- Galli v. State, 967 P.2d 930 (Utah 1998) (consecutive sentences; need detailed factual findings; distinguishable from current case)
- Pratt v. Nelson, 164 P.3d 366 (Utah 2007) (invoked invited error doctrine; affirmative representations impact review)
- Winfield v. State, 128 P.3d 1171 (Utah 2006) (affirmative representations fall within invited error doctrine)