State v. Post
354 P.3d 810
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- 2015 UT App 162; Tyson Post appeals his sentencing in a Utah Court of Appeals memorandum decision.
- District court sentenced Post without a statutorily required substance-abuse screening and assessment for potential drug-court participation.
- Utah statute § 77-18-1.1(2) requires screening and assessment before sentencing and possible treatment or drug court options.
- PSI (presentence investigation) for Post indicated prior alcohol/drug assessment and suggested lack of willingness to engage in treatment; court used PSI in substantively framing sentencing.
- Post challenged several PSI items and requested screening, but on appeal this argument is treated as unpreserved; court considers plain-error review.
- Court affirms the sentence but remands to resolve Post’s PSI objections on the record with explicit findings of accuracy and relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion by not ordering screening/assessment | Post contends screening/assessment is statutorily required | State contends any error not plainly evident or prejudicial; no preservation | No plain error shown; remand for on-record resolution of PSI objections |
| Whether the district court properly evaluated alleged PSI inaccuracies | Post argues inaccuracies were not properly addressed on the record | PSI objections were considered but not all inaccuracies explicitly found on record | Remand to make explicit accuracy/relevance findings on the disputed PSI items |
| Whether the argument was preserved for appeal | Post preserved arguments by raising PSI issues in district court | Argument not preserved; requires plain-error review | Appellate review conducted for plain error; remand limited to PSI resolution on the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Sotolongo v. State, 73 P.3d 991 (Utah App. 2003) (sentencing discretion; standard of review for abuse of discretion)
- Monroe v. State, 345 P.3d 755 (Utah App. 2015) (review of PSI-related accuracy on sentencing remand)
- State v. Waterfield, 248 P.3d 57 (Utah App. 2011) (necessity to resolve PSI inaccuracies for future settings)
- Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (remand to resolve objections on the record when not fully addressed)
- State v. Veteto, 6 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2000) (statutory duty to resolve PSI inaccuracies; on-record findings)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error framework for recognizing obvious errors)