State v. Wood, 427 P.3d 452

Defendant Anthony Thomas Wood pleaded guilty in two consolidated matters: aggravated assault (third-degree felony plea to threatening use of a firearm during an assault) and two counts of possession of forged writing (third-degree felonies).
Assault facts: Wood assaulted a victim in her home, beat and choked her, held a gun to her head, detained her in a bedroom for hours, and forced banking information and withdrawals.
Forgery facts: Police found counterfeit U.S. bills in Wood’s bedroom; a cab driver reported being paid with a counterfeit $100 bill.
At sentencing AP&P recommended prison, citing egregious assault facts, lack of remorse, and continued criminal behavior; Wood requested probation.
The district court sentenced Wood to 0–5 years for the aggravated assault and 0–5 years for each forgery count, imposed concurrent sentences within the forgery case, and ordered the assault sentence to run consecutively to the forgery sentences.
Wood appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by (1) denying probation and (2) ordering consecutive sentences; he also sought plain-error or ineffective-assistance review as to consecutiveness because no contemporaneous request for concurrency was made below.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by imposing prison rather than probation	State: prison appropriate given severity, torture-like assault, lack of remorse, and risk of continued criminality	Wood: court underweighted his remorse, rehabilitative prospects, limited record, and that his girlfriend received probation for similar conduct	Court affirmed: sentencing court acted within broad discretion; gravity of assault justified prison and greater weight on offense severity was reasonable
Whether consecutive sentences between the assault and forgery cases were an abuse of discretion (reviewed for plain error/ineffective assistance)	State: consecutive sentences supported by gravity/circumstances, multiple victims, and defendant's rehabilitative needs	Wood: court should have given more weight to his history, character, and prospects for rehabilitation; defense counsel should have requested concurrent sentences	Court affirmed: no plain or obvious error; court properly applied Utah Code § 76-3-401 factors and reasonably found aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones; Wood failed to show prejudice from counsel’s omission

State v. Sexton, 391 P.3d 297 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (sentencing courts have wide discretion; denial of probation reviewed deferentially)
State v. Epling, 262 P.3d 440 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (appellate courts will not reweigh sentencing factors simply because they differ with the result)
State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (Utah 2008) (trial courts best situated to assess character and decide probation)
State v. Martinez-Castellanos, 389 P.3d 432 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (standards for plain-error and ineffective assistance claims in sentencing context)
State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930 (Utah 1998) (discusses policy preference and standards for concurrent versus consecutive sentences)