State v. Sanchez
409 P.3d 156
Utah Ct. App.2017Background
- Greg Paul Sanchez pleaded no contest to amended charges in three cases, including two convictions for distributing a controlled substance (one first-degree felony, one second-degree felony).
- The district court initially ordered a presentence investigation (PSI), but AP&P could not complete it because Sanchez refused to meet with the agent and the assigned agent later retired.
- Sanchez at one point sought to withdraw his pleas, then changed his mind and, through counsel, expressly asked the court to proceed to sentencing without a PSI.
- At the February 13, 2017 sentencing hearing the court confirmed Sanchez’s request to proceed without a PSI, accepted the pleas, and sentenced him to concurrent prison terms (5-years-to-life and 0-to-15 years) with credit for time served—exactly what Sanchez requested.
- Sanchez appealed, arguing the court plainly erred by sentencing without a PSI despite his prior requests to proceed; the State argued the error was invited and, in any event, Sanchez received an opportunity to present sentencing information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proceeding to sentence without a PSI was plain error | Sanchez: sentencing without a PSI was plain error because the court lacked sufficient information on criminal history, mental health, and medical concerns | State: Sanchez invited the error by requesting to proceed; he and counsel had chance to present info at sentencing | Court: No plain error—error invited; Sanchez asked to proceed and received the sentence he requested |
| Whether courts must obtain a PSI before sentencing when requested earlier | Sanchez: PSI was ordered and necessary; failure to obtain it was improper | State: AP&P inability to complete PSI and defendant’s refusal/withdrawal efforts caused delay; proceeding was permissible when defendant waived PSI | Court: No reversible error where defendant waived and had opportunity to present mitigation |
| Whether defendant was denied opportunity to present mitigating information | Sanchez: Lack of PSI meant important mitigation was unavailable | State: Rule requires opportunity to address court; Sanchez and counsel had that opportunity and made sentencing requests | Court: Defendant had opportunity to be heard; no violation of Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(a) |
| Whether concurrent sentences were plainly excessive or unreasonable without a PSI | Sanchez: Additional info might have supported probation or different terms | State: Sanchez requested concurrent prison terms; trial court acted within discretion | Court: Sentence not plainly erroneous or excessive; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Neilson, 391 P.3d 398 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for sentencing abuse of discretion)
- State v. Monzon, 365 P.3d 1234 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (definition of abuse of discretion in sentencing)
- State v. Valdovinos, 82 P.3d 1167 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (abuse of discretion requires that no reasonable person would adopt the court’s view)
- State v. Alfatlawi, 153 P.3d 804 (Utah Ct. App. 2006) (plain-error review framework for unpreserved claims)
- State v. Hoffman, 397 P.3d 789 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (doctrine of invited error bars plain-error review)
- State v. Wanosik, 79 P.3d 937 (Utah 2003) (trial court’s duty to allow defendant and counsel to address court before sentencing)