State v. Vict. Asta, 437 P.3d 664

Background

In November 2014 Asta drove with her boyfriend after he burglarized an elderly couple’s home; he was masked and armed. After the burglary they were pursued by deputies, leading to two high-speed chases reaching up to 90 mph and dangerous maneuvers across fields.
During the first pursuit an officer performed a PIT maneuver; Asta’s car spun, the officer boxed the car, and Asta then drove forward, contacting (described by the officer as ‘‘ramming’’) his patrol vehicle and escaping. A second chase ended when Asta’s car struck a tree.
Police found two handguns, a ski mask, and later recovered stolen jewelry and drug paraphernalia at the couple’s residence. Asta initially would not give her address.
Asta pled no contest to second-degree burglary and assault against a police officer in exchange for dismissal of other charges; AP&P’s presentence report (PSR) recommended prison despite the guidelines’ presumptive probation, citing aggravators (lack of remorse, refusal to cooperate, criminal mentality, and the ‘‘ramming’’).
At sentencing the court heard extensive argument and testimony (including the officer and AP&P supervisor), rejected Asta’s account, found the crimes ‘‘heinous,’’ and imposed concurrent prison terms. After sentencing Asta moved to disqualify the judge when she learned he had previously been the victim of a home burglary; the reviewing judge denied disqualification.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentencing judge should have recused	Asta: judge’s prior burglary victimization created appearance of bias and required recusal	State: judge followed rule‑29 procedures; prior burglary alone does not require disqualification	Court affirmed denial of disqualification; no abuse of discretion or actual bias shown and rule 29 procedures were followed
Whether district court adequately resolved PSR objections on the record	Asta: court failed to make specific findings on many factual objections (age, plea form, remorse, cooperation, etc.) as required by statute and case law	State: court considered objections at length and its implicit findings supported sentence; some objections were not relied on	Remanded for limited purpose: district court must enter express findings on PSR objections, but sentence affirmed
Whether sentencing was an abuse of discretion (reliability/relevance)	Asta: court relied on unreliable or irrelevant info (‘‘ramming,’’ knowledge of burglary, address refusal, lack of snacks)	State: court relied on credible, relevant evidence (officer testimony, plea to assault, facts showing knowledge)	Court held the court reasonably relied on relevant, reliable information (ramming and knowledge) and did not abuse discretion
Whether sentence (prison vs probation) was improper for failure to weigh factors	Asta: court failed to give weight to lack of priors, remorse, restitution inability, lesser culpability	State: sentencing matrix is advisory; court considered information and reasonably rejected matrix due to aggravators (two high‑speed chases, intentional vehicle assault)	Court held denial of probation was within discretion; no indication court failed to consider legally relevant factors

Key Cases Cited

State v. Alonzo, 973 P.2d 975 (Utah 1998) (heightened burden when rule 29 procedures followed; reversal requires actual bias or abuse)
State v. Gardner, 789 P.2d 273 (Utah 1989) (errors in disqualification must show actual prejudice to warrant reversal)
State v. Monroe, 345 P.3d 755 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (court must consider PSR objections, make findings on accuracy and relevance on the record)
State v. Moa, 282 P.3d 985 (Utah 2012) (appellate court will not presume reliance on possibly irrelevant information from a silent record)
State v. Irey, 405 P.3d 876 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (district court must assess accuracy of AP&P’s assessment of attitude and remorse)