Case Information
_________________________________________________________
T HE U TAH C OURT OF A PPEALS
S TATE OF U TAH , Plaintiff and Appellee, v.
C HARLY B O D ANIELS , Defendant and Appellant. Memorandum Decision No. 20130570-CA Filed October 2, 2014 Second District Court, Ogden Department The Honorable W. Brent West No. 131900220 Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant Sean D. Reyes and Daniel W. Boyer, Attorneys for Appellee J UDGE G REGORY K. O RME authored this Memorandum Decision,
in which J UDGES S TEPHEN L. R OTH and M ICHELE M. C HRISTIANSEN concurred.
ORME, Judge:
¶1 Defendant Charly Bo Daniels pled guilty to burglary and possession or use of a controlled substance, both third degree felonies. After a restitution hearing, the trial court denied Defendant’s request for probatiоn and instead imposed a prison sentence. Defendant appeals, arguing that the trial court erroneously used unreliable information in determining Defendant’s sentence. We affirm.
¶2 The owners of an office building were shocked to discover that copper-hunting thieves had destroyed their building. Water poured through the ceiling where the thieves had ripped out wires and conduits, ruining the walls and ceiling tiles. After surveying the destruction, the owners knew they could not sell the building as they had originally planned. Defendаnt was one of the thieves who had raided the building, and he later admitted to stealing copper wiring from the main power box and walls and to taking copper tubing from а furnace. He was arrested and pled guilty to one count of burglary and one count of possession or use of a controlled substance.
¶3 During the sentencing hearing, Defendant’s trial counsel objected to the building owners’ claims that Defendant’s actions resulted in $21,500 in damages. Trial counsel admitted that this estimate might be correct, but hе insisted that there was no evidence to support it. The trial court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of zero to five years in prison for both feloniеs but stayed the sentence until it could hold a restitution hearing to more accurately determine the amount of the damages. The trial judge stated:
Well, I’ll be candid, it makеs a difference to me . . . . I want to hear from the victims and I want to hear what the restitution figure is actually going [to] be. . . .
If, in fact, the damage is not that high and he has finally awakened and smelled the roses and turned his life around, I’ll consider lifting the stay and putting him on probation. But I want more information.
¶4 At the restitution hearing, the building owners calculated their damages to be “quite a bit more” than their original estimate of $21,500. Defendant admitted that he was “absolutely responsible” for a total of $15,800, but he stipulated to $30,000 in restitution because it was impossible to separate the damage Defendant had caused from the damage other copper thieves may have caused. The triаl court then said, “Were you folks not listening to me when we set the restitution hearing? I said if the restitution was in excess of $20,000, I was seriously considering prison.” [1]
¶5 Defendant’s trial counsel аrgued that there was a distinction between the stipulated restitution amount that Defendant was willing to accept to resolve the matter and the amount of damagеs for which Defendant was admitting actual responsibility. The implication, apparently, was that the trial court should base its sentencing decision on the $15,800 damage figure and not on the stipulated $30,000 restitution figure.
¶6 After discussing other matters and hearing from one of the building owners, the trial court decided to impose the prison sentence it had previously set but then stayed. In doing so, the trial court did not mention either specific figure. Instead, the trial court recited Defendant’s significant criminal history, spanning from 1989 to the present, and concluded, “I just don’t see a difference or a change in the behavior.”
¶7 Without explaining why nearly $16,000 in burglary-related
damage would warrant only probatiоn, albeit with jail time, while
a figure of $30,000 would warrant prison, Defendant now argues
that the trial court erroneously based its decision to impose the
prison sentence on an unreliable damage estimate. He asks us to
overturn the sentence on that basis. We decline to do so. “A
sentence will not be overturned on appeаl unless the trial court has
abused its discretion, failed to consider all legally relevant factors,
or imposed a sentence that exceeds legally presсribed limits.”
State
v. Nuttall
,
¶9 Defendant also argues that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to withdraw the stiрulation to $30,000 in restitution—about double the figure for which Defendant admitted being “absolutely responsible”—when it was clear that the trial court might use that information as a basis tо impose the prison sentence. To show constitutionally ineffective assistance of [2]
counsel, Defendant must prove that his trial counsel’s
“representatiоn fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness,”
Strickland v. Washington
,
has failed to prove that his counsel had no
conceivable
tactical basis
for his actions,” then we will not consider trial counsel’s
performance to be constitutionally deficient.
See State v. Clark
, 2004
UT 25, ¶ 7,
¶10 Here, Defendant argues that, under the circumstances, the $30,000 stipulation “had no conceivable beneficial value” to Defendant and therefore amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. We disagree. Considering the building owners’ revised damage estimate that was “quite a bit more” than originally thought, and considering the extensive nature of the damage to the building, trial counsel might very reasonably have concluded that his client risked restitution liability in excess of $30,000. Or counsel may have thought that it might рlay well for Defendant to accept a restitution award in excess of the damages for which he admitted he was “absolutely responsible.” Either rationale supplies a “conceivable tactical basis” for trial counsel to stipulate to that amount. See id . When the trial court reminded trial counsel that damages in excеss of $20,000 would prompt it to seriously consider imposing the prison sentence, trial counsel appropriately argued that there was a difference betweеn his client’s personal liability, which Defendant acknowledged to be $15,800, and his client’s restitution obligation, stipulated at $30,000. Whether the trial court ultimately accepted this reasoning is irrelevant to whether trial counsel had a conceivable tactical basis for this approach. Because we conclude that trial counsel had a conceivable tactical basis for his approach, we cannot conclude that he was ineffective in this regard.
¶11 Because the trial сourt did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant, and because Defendant’s trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective, we decline to overturn the sentence imposed by the trial court.
¶12 Affirmed.