State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5

Munguia pled guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual abuse and two counts of sexual abuse of a child involving his daughter, offenses spanning roughly 2000–2007.
Adult Probation & Parole prepared a PSR with a separate psychosexual evaluation that recommended probation, but the court did not adopt that recommendation.
Prosecutor advocated for consecutive prison sentences, highlighting the victim’s harm, grooming, and Munguia’s minimization of responsibility.
Judge Kouris sentenced Munguia to three-to-life terms on the first-degree felonies and one-to-fifteen terms on the second-degree felonies, to run consecutively; total term aligned with the court’s discretion under the probation statute.
Munguia challenged lack of recusal, argued probation statutes were not applied, and raised plain error/exceptional circumstances/ineffective assistance arguments, but these issues were not preserved and were rejected on appeal.
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed, holding no recusal was required, sentencing complied with Utah law, and there was no plain error, exceptional circumstance, or ineffective assistance warranting relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judge should have recused himself	Munguia contends bias violated due process and required recusal	Munguia asserts judge’s remarks show bias	No recusal required; no due process violation found
Whether sentencing complied with probation statutes	Munguia argues court failed to apply probation statutes correctly	Court had discretion to deny probation despite eligibility	Sentencing lawful; probation denial within statutory discretion
Whether counsel’s performance at sentencing was ineffective	Munguia asserts counsel should have argued probation factors	Counsel’s performance not prejudicial; unlikely different outcome	No ineffective assistance; no reasonable probability of a more favorable outcome
Whether the ruling constitutes plain error or exceptional circumstance	Plain error due to non-preservation; exceptional circumstance due to alleged bias	No plain error or exceptional circumstance established	No plain error; no exceptional circumstance; affirmed judgment

State v. Nelson-Waggoner, 2004 UT 29 (Utah) (exceptional circumstances standard applied sparingly; manifest injustice concerns)
State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74 (Utah) (plain error standard for nonpreserved issues; limits on relief)
State v. Clark, 2004 UT 25 (Utah) (ineffective assistance framework; prejudice requirement applies at sentencing)
State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 (Utah) (ineffective assistance and plain error considerations in sentencing)
State v. Hammond, 2001 UT 92 (Utah) (distinguishes requirements for probation eligibility and PSR guidance)