State v. Monroe
345 P.3d 755
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Glenn Vaughn Monroe pled guilty (via revised plea) to forcible sexual abuse and second-degree burglary; court sentenced him to two concurrent indeterminate terms of 1–15 years.
- At sentencing defense counsel identified six alleged errors in the presentence investigation report (PSI): inaccurate probation history, omission of high school completion, failure to explain unemployment, incomplete family relationship details, improper reflection of remorse/understanding, and insufficient treatment of case-specific instances.
- The district court acknowledged or commented on many objections but did not make on-the-record findings as to the accuracy and relevance of four of the objections, as required by statute. One objection (probation history) was resolved by accepting the criminal history section.
- The State largely agreed with several of Monroe’s factual corrections (e.g., high school completion, understanding of severity). The victim’s impact statement and the gravity of the crimes influenced sentencing.
- Monroe appealed, arguing the district court failed to resolve PSI objections on the record, that this led to a flawed sentence, and seeking remand for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court complied with Utah Code § 77-18-1(6)(a) by resolving PSI objections on the record | The State argued the court considered the objections and sufficiently addressed them at sentencing | Monroe argued the court failed to make on-the-record findings about accuracy and relevance for several PSI objections as required by statute | The court held the court considered the objections but did not fully make the required on-the-record findings for four objections; statutory requirement not fully satisfied |
| Whether failure to make on-the-record PSI findings rendered the sentence flawed and require reversal | The State argued any omission did not taint the sentence and the record shows the court had defendant’s version before it | Monroe argued the lack of on-the-record findings led to a flawed sentence and required resentencing | The court held the sentence itself was not flawed—judge had plaintiff’s version—so reversal/resentencing not required |
| Appropriate remedy for unaddressed PSI objections | The State urged no resentencing given substantive record | Monroe sought vacatur/remand for full resentencing or at least resolution on record | The court ordered a limited remand to make on-the-record findings resolving the disputed PSI facts but affirmed the sentence |
| Whether to reach ineffective-assistance claim based on counsel not requesting on-the-record findings | The State did not press this; the court did not need to decide | Monroe argued counsel was ineffective for not asking for findings | The court declined to reach the ineffective-assistance claim given the limited remand remedy ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (court must consider PSI objections, make findings on accuracy, and state relevance on the record)
- State v. Waterfield, 248 P.3d 57 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (PSI objections must be resolved on the record because PSIs may be used in later proceedings)