State v. Wimberly, 305 P.3d 1072

Wimberly pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated assault on March 6, 2009 under a plea in abeyance for 24 months, supervised by AP&P.
In October 2010, Wimberly was arrested on a new aggravated assault charge.
AP&P submitted a Progress/Violation Report alleging additional violations including lack of contact with AP&P, failure to participate in required treatment, and a prior plea-violation finding.
The court issued an Order to Show Cause and held an evidentiary hearing on the alleged violations.
The court found a violation, entered the plea in abeyance as terminated, and sentenced Wimberly to zero to five years in prison.
Wimberly appealed challenging both the termination of the plea in abeyance and the prison sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination of the plea in abeyance requires willful violations	Wimberly argues violations must be willful	Wimberly asserts willfulness is required under probation-revocation logic	Substantial compliance governs; not required willfulness
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing	Wimberly contends probation was appropriate given OSC status	Court had discretion to impose prison to protect public	Court acted within wide discretion to sentence to prison

State v. Turnbow, 21 P.3d 249 (2001 UT App 59) (plea in abeyance term violations analyzed under statutory standard)
State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (2008 UT 49) (abuse of discretion standard in sentencing and probation decisions)
State v. Martin, 283 P.3d 1066 (2012 UT App 208) (substantial compliance standard governs plea in abeyance termination)
State v. Maestas, 997 P.2d 314 (2000 UT App 22) (discusses substantial compliance vs willfulness)