391 P.3d 395
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Moosman had a protective order (stipulated) prohibiting communication with Mother except texts about their child; he repeatedly sent other texts.
- In 2014 Moosman pleaded guilty twice for violating the protective order (third-degree felonies); both sentences were suspended and he was placed on probation.
- While on probation for those convictions, Moosman again sent texts in 2015 that violated the protective order and pleaded guilty to a third third-degree felony.
- At sentencing the court revoked probation on the earlier convictions, imposed the previously suspended indeterminate prison terms (not to exceed five years), and imposed an additional concurrent indeterminate prison term for the latest offense.
- Moosman appealed, arguing the sentence was inherently unfair/disproportionate and that the court relied on irrelevant or unreliable information in sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Moosman’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposing prison rather than probation was an abuse of discretion | Sentence was disproportionate to comparatively benign, nonviolent text messages; he sought another probation chance | Trial court acted within broad discretion given repeated violations and AP&P recommendation for prison | No abuse of discretion; sentence not inherently unfair or disproportionate |
| Whether court relied on irrelevant/unreliable information at sentencing | Court’s reference to “literature” and “experience” about control was vague and unreliable as applied to him | Court relied on a recognized principle that attempts to control a former partner can indicate ongoing danger; Moosman did not show unreliability | Reliance was permissible; defendant bore burden to show unreliability and failed to do so |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah 2008) (trial courts have wide latitude in sentencing)
- State v. Valdovinos, 82 P.3d 1167 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (defendant is not entitled to probation; standard for reviewing sentencing discretion)
- State v. Wimberly, 305 P.3d 1072 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (affirming prison over probation within court’s discretion)
- State v. Moa, 282 P.3d 985 (Utah 2012) (sentencing judges may rely on relevant, reasonably reliable information; defendant bears burden to show unreliability)
- State v. Howell, 707 P.2d 115 (Utah 1985) (due process requires sentencing on reasonably reliable and relevant information)