Appellant William Jay Robbins appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant was convicted of sexual abuse of a child with aggravating circumstances, U.C.A., 1953, § 76-5-404.1(3), and was sentenced to a term of five years to life with a minimum mandatory sentence of three years. The foregoing statute under which he was charged and sentenced made sexual abuse of a child a first degree felony. Under subpart (3), it named nine aggravating circumstances. If any of the aggravating circumstances were found, a minimum mandatory sentence of three, six, or nine years was imposed. Appellant had previously been convicted of a felony for a sexual offense. This prior conviction constituted an aggravating circumstance under sub-part (3)(e). Therefore, he was given a minimum mandatory sentence of three years.
The legislature amended section -404.1 in 1984. 1984 Utah Laws ch. 18, § 10. This amendment, which went into effect after the alleged commission of the offense here but before the trial, reduced sexual abuse of a child to a second degree felony. In reliance on State v. Tapp,
Appellant argues that once the stipulation was entered, respondents were bound thereby. However, the court has broad discretion to set aside a stipulation on a procedural matter. See United Factors v. T C. Associates Inc.,
Although the amendment reduced sexual abuse of a child to a second degree felony when there are no aggravating circumstances, sexual abuse of a child when any of the nine named aggravating circumstances are found remained a first degree felony. The same minimum mandatory sentences triggered by the aggravating circumstances apply both prior and subsequent to the 1984 amendment. Appellant admitted to the existence of an aggravating circumstance; therefore, sentencing under either version of the statute reaches the same result. Since the reduced penalty in the amended statute applies only where there are no aggravating circumstances, appellant would not benefit from and is not entitled to resentencing.
Appellant claims that his sixth amendment right to notice of the charge was denied by the change in the statute. This
