State v. Schmidt
348 P.3d 1206
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1998 Schmidt pled guilty to a third-degree felony, received an indeterminate term (up to 5 years) suspended in favor of two years probation.
- In 2000 AP&P alleged probation violations; an order to show cause was issued but not served at that time.
- In 2005 Schmidt was arrested on unrelated charges; AP&P served a new order to show cause, Schmidt admitted some violations, and the court revoked and then effectively restarted probation by ordering 100 days in jail concurrent with other time.
- Schmidt did not appeal the 2005 revocation; in 2013 he filed a Rule 22(e) motion asking the court to set aside the 2005 revocation and retroactively terminate probation at its original 2000 expiration.
- The district court heard the motion on the merits and denied relief; Schmidt appealed. The State argued the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the 2013 ruling insofar as it challenges the 2005 revocation.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Schmidt's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) to set aside a 2005 probation revocation | Rule 22(e) does not confer jurisdiction because the 2005 revocation was not an illegal sentence | Rule 22(e) permits correction of an allegedly illegal sentence and thus allows setting aside the revocation and terminating probation retroactively | Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 22(e); vacated district court order and remanded to dismiss the motion for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether revocation/reinstatement of probation is a "sentence" or an "illegal sentence" under Rule 22(e) | Revocation/reinstatement is not a sentencing and did not produce an illegal sentence here | The 2005 action should be treated as an illegal sentence subject to Rule 22(e) relief | Court held revocation/restart of probation is not a sentence for Rule 22(e) purposes and the record did not show an "illegal sentence" as defined by precedent |
| Whether a stipulation by the State could confer jurisdiction on the court | Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by stipulation | Schmidt argued the State stipulated to terminate probation | Court confirmed jurisdiction cannot be conferred by stipulation and rejected this as a basis for jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Anderson, 203 P.3d 990 (Utah 2009) (discusses court's authority when probation is revoked and sentencing alternatives)
- State v. Waterfield, 248 P.3d 57 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (probation revocation and reinstatement is not a sentencing subject to Rule 22(e))
- State v. Candedo, 232 P.3d 1008 (Utah 2010) (defines "illegal sentence" for Rule 22(e) purposes)
- State v. Yazzie, 203 P.3d 984 (Utah 2009) (further discussion of characteristics that render a sentence illegal)
Result: The appellate court vacated the district court's Rule 22(e) ruling and remanded with instructions to dismiss Schmidt's 2013 motion for lack of jurisdiction.