State v. Robinson
2014 UT App 114
Utah Ct. App.2014Background
- Robinson pleaded no contest to forcible sexual abuse, sexual battery, terroristic threat, and disorderly conduct; court suspended sentences and placed him on 86 months probation.
- Multiple probation violation allegations followed (failure to register as a sex offender and for DNA, failure to report, disappearing contact with AP&P); warrants issued and hearings held.
- At earlier hearings Robinson admitted violations, offered explanations (confusion about probation due to counsel/advice and inability to travel), and the court reinstated probation once but warned further noncompliance would result in imposition of the original sentence.
- Robinson later admitted additional violations at a revocation hearing, waived an evidentiary hearing, and again explained his misunderstandings; the court expressed skepticism, found violations willful (implicitly), and revoked probation, imposing the original sentence.
- On appeal Robinson argued the court abused its discretion by revoking probation without an evidentiary hearing and without expressly finding willfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by revoking probation without an evidentiary hearing | Robinson: No evidentiary hearing was held; this deprived him of statutory protections | State: Robinson waived the hearing by admitting allegations; court afforded opportunity to explain; any challenge is unpreserved | Court: Challenge not preserved; by admitting allegations Robinson obviated need for State to present evidence, so no abuse of discretion |
| Whether revocation required an explicit finding that violations were willful | Robinson: Court did not explicitly find willfulness before revoking | State: Court’s statements amount to an implied finding; claim insufficiently preserved | Court: Claim preserved; court implicitly found willfulness (probationer didn’t make bona fide efforts); revocation was within discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jameson, 800 P.2d 798 (Utah 1990) (probation decisions are within trial court discretion)
- State v. Maestas, 997 P.2d 814 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (appellate review defers to trial court findings unless evidence is so deficient as to be an abuse of discretion)
- State v. Brady, 300 P.3d 778 (Utah Ct. App. 2018) (finding of willfulness may be implicit)
- State v. Peterson, 869 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (revocation requires finding by preponderance that violation was willful; willfulness means lack of bona fide efforts)