State v. Perkins
322 P.3d 1184
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- In 2009 Perkins’s eight-week-old son sustained arm and rib fractures and other injuries likely inflicted at three times, leading to four child-abuse charges.
- The State sought to admit two prior-bad-acts convictions: 1997 abuse of a 3-year-old while babysitting and a separate severe head/abdominal trauma episode; a third infant-son incident was suppressed.
- Perkins pleaded guilty to two counts; the State dropped two charges and stayed silent on whether sentences would run concurrently or consecutively to another sentence Perkins was serving.
- A presentence investigation report (PSI) noted concerning, repetitive history but made no recommendation on concurrent vs consecutive sentencing.
- At sentencing, the judge condemned Perkins as a serial child abuser and expressed intent to impose the longest possible sentence, then said two third-degree felonies would run concurrently with each other and with a current prison term, which conflicted with the subsequent clerical order.
- A clerical error later ordered concurrent sentences, but the judge later resentenced Perkins to consecutive sentences, after which Perkins appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court had jurisdiction to amend the sentence | Perkins argues no jurisdiction after final judgment | State argues Rule 30(b) allows clerical corrections | Yes; clerical error correction permitted |
| Whether resentencing violated double jeopardy | Perkins had legitimate finality expectation | No; error was clerical and expectancy was not legitimate | No double jeopardy violation |
| Whether consecutive sentences were properly imposed given the record | Judge failed to consider mitigating factors | Court properly weighed factors and exercised discretion | No abuse of discretion; consecutive sentences proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rodrigues, 218 P.3d 610 (Utah 2009) (clerical errors in judgments may be corrected; finality considerations for double jeopardy)
- Bishop v. GenTec, Inc., 48 P.3d 218 (Utah 2002) (broad approach to correctability; intent governs clerical vs judicial errors)
- State v. Denney, 776 P.2d 91 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (limits on using later remarks to justify changing judgment; record of intent matters)
- State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (sentencing discretion and weighing mitigating vs aggravating factors)
- State v. Wright, 893 P.2d 1113 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (abuse of discretion in sentencing; one factor may outweigh others)