455 P.3d 1066
Utah Ct. App.2019Background
- Walton and KB dated; after KB tried to end the relationship, Walton repeatedly harassed, threatened, and ultimately physically assaulted KB (including grabbing her by the hair, hitting her head against car windows, and threatening to kill her).
- The State charged Walton with retaliation (third-degree felony) and multiple misdemeanor counts; Walton entered an Alford plea to retaliation as part of a plea agreement that dismissed other charges.
- As part of the plea, Walton expressly agreed to the entry of a permanent criminal stalking injunction prohibiting contact with KB and her family; the court signed and served the injunction at sentencing.
- Eighteen months later Walton contacted KB in violation of the injunction; he was charged with stalking for those violations and pleaded to one stalking count in a later case.
- Walton moved in the Retaliation Case under Utah R. Crim. P. 22(e) to correct his sentence, arguing the permanent injunction was an illegal sentence (exceeding statutory maximums and prohibited by statute); the district court denied the motion and the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Walton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying Walton's Rule 22(e) motion to vacate the permanent criminal stalking injunction imposed in the Retaliation Case | The injunction is an illegal sentence because (1) a permanent injunction can be imposed only on a stalking conviction, not retaliation, and (2) it exceeds the statutorily authorized maximum (life-long vs. 5-year max for a third-degree felony) | The injunction was a legitimate part of the sentence entered by plea; Rule 22(e) "maximums" targets incarceration lengths, not ancillary sanctions; no statute prohibits imposing injunctions as part of a sentence; Walton accepted plea benefits and cannot repudiate the agreed sentence | Affirmed. The injunction was not an illegal sentence under Rule 22(e); court may impose stalking injunctions as a sentencing condition and Walton cannot accept plea benefits then challenge the agreed sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Archuleta, 449 P.3d 223 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (discussion/definition of an Alford plea)
- State v. Kropf, 360 P.3d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (applies Rule 22(e) analysis to a permanent criminal stalking injunction)
- State v. Wynn, 407 P.3d 1113 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (standard of review for denial of a Rule 22(e) motion is correctness)
- State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (a defendant who accepts plea benefits cannot later attack the sentence absent certain legal mistakes)