Vorher v. Honorable S. L. Henriod
297 P.3d 614
Utah2013Background
- Vorher was charged with voyeurism in a Tooele County justice court and pled guilty to disorderly conduct, a C misdemeanor, receiving 90 days in jail and a fine.
- Vorher appealed to the district court, which conducted a de novo trial and sentenced him to 180 days in jail and a higher fine on the original charge.
- Vorher petitioned for extraordinary relief in the Utah Court of Appeals arguing the district court exceeded statutory limits by imposing a harsher sentence after appeal.
- The court of appeals denied relief, applying section 76-8-405(2)(b) to allow a harsher sentence after a plea agreement on appeal from justice court.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether section 76-3-405(2)(b) bars harsher sentences following a justice court plea appeal.
- The majority held that the 2(b) exception applies to justice court appeals, upholding the district court’s harsher sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 76-8-405(2)(b) applies to justice court appeals | Vorher argues it should not apply to justice court appeals. | Tooele City argues it applies to justice court appeals and is consistent with precedent. | Yes; subsection (2)(b) applies to justice court appeals. |
| Is Wisden controlling to apply subsection (2)(b) to justice courts? | Vorher contends Wisden would foreclose applying (2)(b) to justice courts. | Tooele City relies on Wisden’s framework and argues (2)(b) extends to justice courts. | Stare decisis supports applying (2)(b) to justice courts. |
| Does the legislative history support applying subsection (2)(b) to justice courts? | Vorher asserts the Legislature would not intend (2)(b) to apply to justice courts. | The Legislature added (2) after Wisden to align with precedent and public policy. | Yes; history supports applying (2)(b) to justice courts. |
| Does applying (2)(b) to justice courts conflict with federal due process or vindictiveness rules? | Vorher argues due process may bar harsher sentences after appeal in plea cases. | City argues no due process violation; vindictiveness not shown here. | No due process violation; rule does not require presumption of vindictiveness in plea context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wisden v. District Court, 694 P.2d 605 (Utah 1984) (applies subsection (1) to justice court appeals)
- Bernat v. Allphin, 106 P.3d 707 (Utah 2005) (upheld justice court appeal framework)
- State v. Powell, 957 P.2d 595 (Utah 1998) (plea bargains inform sentencing; policy support)
- North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (due process and vindictiveness in retrial)
- Texas v. McCullough, 475 U.S. 134 (1986) (presumption of vindictiveness does not always apply)
- Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 (1989) (no presumption of vindictiveness after plea context)