State v. Wilkes, 2020 UT App 175

In 2012 Wilkes (27) sexually abused NK (16) multiple times; in 2013 he sexually abused another minor (SV) and pleaded guilty to sexual battery in that earlier case. A psychosexual evaluation was performed in 2013 as part of the first case.
In the 2013 evaluation Wilkes denied sexual contact with anyone under 17 and minimized responsibility; the evaluator concluded he was not then ready for sex-offender treatment.
Wilkes completed court-ordered sex-offender treatment and probation in 2016. NK disclosed Wilkes’s abuse in 2016 and the State charged Wilkes in 2017 for conduct involving NK; he pleaded guilty to two counts in the second case.
A presentence investigation (PSI) for the second case included (a) the 2013 psychosexual evaluation, (b) letters from Wilkes’s current therapist documenting later treatment and improvement, and (c) victim impact statements; AP&P recommended imprisonment.
Wilkes objected to the PSI and to consideration of prior materials; the court reviewed files from both cases, continued sentencing to allow objections, and ultimately sentenced Wilkes to concurrent 0–5 year prison terms.
On appeal Wilkes argued (1) ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to the court’s use of the 2013 psychosexual evaluation, and (2) the court abused its discretion by imposing prison rather than probation. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Wilkes' Argument	State/Counsel's Argument	Held
Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the sentencing court’s reliance on a 2013 psychosexual evaluation	Counsel should have objected because the 2013 evaluation was outdated, unreliable, and prejudicial; exclusion would let the court rely more on more recent therapist letters and impose a lighter sentence	Allowing the evaluation was a reasonable trial strategy: it provided a benchmark to show progress; the evaluation was relevant and prepared by a qualified evaluator; an objection would likely have been futile	No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choice was a reasonable tactical decision and the evaluation was relevant and reliable, so failure to object was not deficient or prejudicial
Whether the sentencing court abused its discretion by imposing prison instead of probation	Court failed to give adequate weight to rehabilitation, Wilkes’s post-conviction progress, and the ~10 months he already served	Court appropriately weighed aggravating (predatory conduct, minimization, lack of victim empathy, impact on victim, criminal history) and mitigating factors (treatment completion, education, restitution, time served); sentencing discretion favored imprisonment	No abuse of discretion: court permissibly considered rehabilitative needs along with punishment, deterrence, and reparation and reached a reasonable result

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
State v. Moa, 282 P.3d 985 (Utah 2012) (sentencing courts may rely on relevant, reliable information in the record)
State v. Gallegos, 463 P.3d 641 (Utah 2020) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions)
State v. Cabrera, 163 P.3d 707 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (right to effective assistance at sentencing)