West Valley City v. Walljasper
2012 UT App 252
| Utah Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Walljasper pled guilty to two counts of violating a protective order; probation terms prohibited further violations.
- Victim filed OSC; new violations were alleged; hearing set for Feb 28, 2011.
- Court learned Walljasper was serving a 60‑day sentence for a related violation; defendant had about 30 days remaining.
- Victim urged the court to impose the maximum two‑year sentence after the related violation; counsel urged concurrent jail time due to employment and child support concerns.
- Court sentenced Walljasper to 365 days on each current charge, to be served after the related violation, with probation afterward; allocution requested by defense.
- Walljasper spoke at length after sentence was announced; court did not address his statements before adjourning.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was allocution violated by the timing of the initial sentence announcement? | Walljasper alleges no meaningful allocution occurred before sentencing. | The court could consider allocution after announcing sentence; could affect final sentence. | Yes, initial defect occurred; but cured by belated allocution before finalizing sentence. |
| Did the court cure the defect by permitting allocution after the sentence was announced? | Court failed to communicate that allocution could influence the sentence. | Belated allocution allowed mitigation; record shows consideration could still occur. | Yes, the defect was remedied by allowing mitigatory allocution while still able to influence the sentence. |
| Did the court's failure to articulate consideration of allocution require resentencing? | Silence on weighing mitigating factors implies no consideration. | Presumed the court weighed factors; no explicit articulation required. | No resentencing required; record supports consideration and final decision despite lack of explicit articulation. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Casey, 2002 UT 29 (Utah) (victim right to be heard at plea proceedings; court corrected by reopening and allowing testimony)
- State v. Wanosik, 2003 UT 46 (Utah) (allocution purpose: address court and provide mitigation information)
- State v. Maestas, 2002 UT 123 (Utah) (allocution importance and risk of chilling rights)
- United States v. Luepke, 495 F.3d 443 (7th Cir. 2007) (defendant must be communicated meaningful opportunity to influence sentence)
- United States v. Landeros‑Lopez, 615 F.3d 1260 (10th Cir. 2010) (timing of allocution; belated opportunity risks influence on final sentence)
- United States v. Frost, 684 F.3d 963 (10th Cir. 2012) (if belated allocution occurs, court must show meaningful consideration of statements)
- United States v. Williams, 109 F.3d 502 (8th Cir. 1997) (factors for remedial allocution analysis)
- State v. Casey, 2009 UT 29 (Utah) (reaffirmation after hearing victim’s testimony; allocution timing context)