Case Information
67 _________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
L AYTON C ITY , Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
B RENT S ORENSON S TEVENSON , Appellee.
Opinion No.
Filed March
Second District, Department Honorable David R. Hamilton No.
Gary R. Crane Steven L Garside, Attorneys Appellant
Glen W. Neeley, Attorney Appellee
J UDGE W ILLIAM A. T HORNE J R . authored this Opinion, which J UDGES G REGORY K. O RME S TEPHEN L. R OTH concurred.
THORNE, Judge: appeals final order
dismissing, prejudice, one count prostitute against Brent Sorenson Stevenson. generally Ann. § (LexisNexis 2012). We reverse remand.
Layton
BACKGROUND
¶2 Defendant was arrested in Layton City charged in second district court with patronizing a prostitute. On April 14, 2009, Defendant entered into a plea in abeyance with Layton City. Under the terms the agreement, Defendant pleaded no contest the patronizing a prostitute charge; in return, Layton City agreed plea held for eighteen months. As Defendant was instructed he was commit “[n]o except traffic offenses.”
¶3 On October 18, 2009, day offense, Defendant was charged with sexual solicitation Sunset City. On April 15, 2010, Defendant entered into diversion Sunset City Justice Court. Then, October 2010, Layton City filed motion an order show cause district court alleging that Defendant had violated terms conditions in based his sexual solicitation charge Sunset City. Defendant denied violating arguing no had been entered against him Sunset City because he had entered into diversion agreement. The district court held hearing Layton City’s order to show cause motion. The determined “a ‘violation law,’ terms parties’ Plea Abeyance Agreement,
must necessarily not merely allegation misconduct.” Thereafter, determined because diversion with Sunset City such therefore contemplated agreement. concluded Defendant had agreement. As result, denied City’s motion reinstate no contest dismissed prejudice prostitute against pursuant appeals.
Layton v.
ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶5
City argues district court erred dismissing
prejudice against Defendant after determining,
based its interpretation Defendant’s abeyance
Defendant had agreement. “We review court’s dismissal criminal
case abuse discretion.”
State v. White
,
ANALYSIS argues erred requiring criminal [1] relevant at issue this case
[1] argues State has no right appeal following successful comple ‐ tion after full performance contractual terms. Indeed, State’s ability appeal is limited Code section 77 ‐ 18a ‐ 1(3). Utah Code Ann. § 77 ‐ 18a ‐ 1(3) (LexisNexis 2012). However, State may, matter right, appeal “a final judgment dismissal.” Id. § 77 ‐ ‐ 1(3)(a). This has held phrase “a final judg ‐ ment dismissal” “refers dismissals where con ‐ strued applicable before ruling sufficiency convict before final judgment.” State v. Amador , P.2d (Utah Ct. App. (applying Utah section 26(3)(a), previous version current
(continued...) v. required commit “[n]o of except traffic offenses.” ¶7 Utah section sets forth the procedural requirements regarding violations. This section provides,
(1) If, at any time during the of the plea agreement, information comes to the attention the prosecuting attorney the the defendant has violated any condition the court, at the request the prosecuting attorney, . . . issue order requiring defendant appear before court . . . show cause why should find been why should terminated. If, following hearing, finds defendant has failed substantially comply any term condition may terminate . . . .
(2) termination subsequent entry judgment conviction (...continued) statute); see also State Musselman , P.2d 1064–65 (Utah (discussing appeals dismissals concluding dismissal based on court’s construction applicable law before ruled sufficiency convict was, effect, final judgment therefore appealable). Here, reasons dismissing Defendant’s are based its legal interpretation particular agreement before ruling merits case. Thus, State has right appeal.
and imposition of sentence shall not bar any independent prosecution arising any offense that constituted a violation of any or of an agreement whereby the original placed abeyance. Utah Code Ann. § ‐ 2a ‐ (LexisNexis (emphasis added). ¶8 Here, the court looked to the plain language of the meaning of the phrase “violations of law.” The then cited Black’s Law Dictionary defining “violation” as “[a]n infraction or breach of law or [t]he act breaking dishonoring law.” (Alterations original and internal quotation marks omitted.) Thereafter reasoned that “an individual accused of breaking is presumed innocent until proven guilty” and “[i]f individual is ultimately adjudged pleads guilty crime, he is found violated is convicted of underlying crime.” The district then found “‘violation law,’ under terms parties’ Plea Abeyance must necessarily be a not merely allegation misconduct.” The court concluded diversion with Sunset City is determined had not violated terms agreement. City contends plain meaning phrase “violation law,” as used as contemplated section does require agreement. We agree plain meaning phrase “violation law” does not, as found, necessarily require conviction. Rather, parties’ contemplated statute, “violation law” supported by misconduct other than conviction. phrase “violation law” limited proof solely means conviction. ¶10 The plea in abeyance agreement does not specify exact evidentiary requirement associated condition “[n]o violations of except for minor traffic offenses.” Nonetheless, plain meaning of term “violation” utilized in statute governing pleas in abeyance provides for notion a conviction is not necessarily required to establish a violation of a term or condition of an agreement. The plea in abeyance statute specifically provides that a prosecution and for an offense that constitutes a violation of plea in agreement may occur after a violation termination of the plea in abeyance. Ann. § 4(2). Section ‐ 2a ‐ 4(2) states that “ [t]he termination a plea in abeyance subsequent entry judgment imposition of sentence shall bar any independent prosecution arising any offense that constituted a violation any term or condition an whereby original plea placed abeyance. ” Id. (emphasis added). Because statute contemplates later prosecution for conduct that constitutes a violation the conditions plea abeyance it follows that is a prerequisite to a finding that a defendant has contravention a condition a in abeyance agreement. It possible a to admissions
certain facts a defendant, other evidence presented at requisite hearing, are sufficient establish defendant’s conduct constituted violation law, thereby agreement. For instance, defendant admit violating e.g., submitting drug testing required under defendant’s Such an admission would sufficient itself prove violation requiring drug testing. Likewise, prosecution could present defendant tested positive drugs, when required commit no law except traffic offenses. statute makes clear where determines defendant v. a term a plea in abeyance such as testing positive for drugs in second example, a criminal charge arising that offense may be prosecuted independent plea in abeyance matter. ¶12 Based on statutory usage term “violation” in the plea in abeyance statute, we that a is the sole means proving a abeyance violation. [2] As a result, the erred concluding parties’ only be demonstrated conviction. Thus, we reverse court’s prostitute remand further proceedings consistent this opinion. [3]
CONCLUSION
¶13 The language parties’ agreement, conditioned upon requirement commit [2] “Conviction” such settled legal art if legislature meant only would deemed breach would have been easy enough said so.
[3] Because we reverse City’s first argument erred requiring violation, we need address City’s secondary argument so doing implicitly employed incorrect burden proof evidentiary hearing. State v. Carter , P.2d 886, (Utah (“[An appellate c]ourt need analyze address writing each every argument, issue, claim raised properly before [it] appeal.”), overruled other grounds recognized by Archuleta Galetka , UT ¶ 29, P.3d 232.
“[n]o except traffic offenses,” does not require We reverse prostitute remand hearing if before his completed. ¶14 Reversed remanded.