Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod
2013 UT 10
Utah2013Background
- Vorher charged with voyeurism in justice court; pled guilty to disorderly conduct, 90 days jail and fine.
- District court, in a de novo trial, convicted on the original charge and imposed 180 days in jail plus higher fine.
- Vorher sought extraordinary relief; the court of appeals denied relief.
- The issue is whether Utah Code section 76-3-405(2)(b) applies to appeals from justice courts.
- The Court grants certiorari to resolve the applicability of subsection (2)(b) to justice court appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Utah Code § 76-3-405(2)(b) apply to justice court appeals? | Vorher argues § 76-3-405(2)(b) does not apply to justice courts; would chill appeal and violate due process. | Tooele City argues § 76-3-405(2)(b) applies to justice court appeals and is consistent with precedent. | Yes; § 76-3-405(2)(b) applies to justice court appeals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisden v. District Court, 694 P.2d 605 (Utah 1984) (subsection (1) applies to justice court appeals; Wisden tracks applicability to justice courts)
- Bernat v. Allphin, 106 P.3d 707 (Utah 2005) (upholds justice court appeal framework and de novo review)
- State v. Powell, 957 P.2d 595 (Utah 1998) (premise that plea bargains affect sentencing and policy considerations)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (vindictiveness in retrial sentencing; due process considerations)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (plea-bargain context; no presumption of vindictiveness post-plea)
- Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986) (no presumption of vindictiveness after trial when higher sentence occurs)