State v. Warner
2015 UT App 81
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Ronald Warner pleaded guilty to two domestic-violence matters: one Class-A misdemeanor and one Class-B misdemeanor; both sentences were stayed and he was placed on probation.
- In the Class-B case Warner was ordered to pay a $500 fine and a $66 fee in $50 monthly payments beginning April 1, 2011.
- A consolidated order-to-show-cause hearing in July 2013 addressed alleged probation violations in both cases; the court took judicial notice of its records showing Warner made no payments and that the debt was referred to the Office of State Debt Collection.
- Warner’s counsel did not object to judicial notice and presented no contrary evidence; the State’s witness testimony about Warner’s release date was struck for discovery reasons and was not considered.
- The district court revoked Warner’s probation in both cases, implicitly finding the violations willful, and reinstated the original jail sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness: whether Warner’s release renders the appeal moot | State: Appeal moot because Warner was released and no relief can affect rights | Warner: Collateral consequences may persist; appeal not moot | Court: Not moot — collateral legal consequences may result; court reaches merits |
| Sufficiency of evidence for revocation (Class-B) | State: Judicial notice of court records showing zero payments suffices | Warner: Payment schedule tied to release date; no evidence of release date so cannot prove violation | Court: Sufficient evidence — order required payments beginning April 1, 2011 and records show no payments; revocation supported |
| Duty to consider alternatives before revocation | State: Court need not explore alternatives when violation is willful | Warner: Court failed to inquire why violation occurred and consider alternatives | Court: No duty here — it implicitly found willfulness, so no obligation to explore alternatives further |
| Public policy: incarceration inconsistent with probation goals | Warner: Revocation not necessary for public safety; doesn’t serve societal interest | State: Underlying violent convictions justify revocation for public protection | Court: Rejection of Warner’s policy argument; violent nature and court’s findings support revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re C.D., 245 P.3d 724 (Utah 2010) (mootness when relief cannot affect litigants and treatment of collateral consequences)
- Barnett v. Adams, 273 P.3d 378 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (collateral legal consequences exception to mootness)
- Duran v. Morris, 635 P.2d 43 (Utah 1981) (criminal cases moot only if no possibility of collateral consequences)
- Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (U.S. 1968) (recognition of collateral consequences in criminal context)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (requirement to consider alternatives before revoking probation when failure to pay is not willful)
- State v. Peterson, 869 P.2d 989 (Utah Ct. App. 1994) (trial court discretion and deference to factual findings in probation revocation)
- State v. Robinson, 327 P.3d 589 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (willfulness standard requires lack of bona fide efforts to meet probation conditions)
- State v. Brady, 300 P.3d 778 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (probationer’s failure to take mitigating action supports finding of willfulness)