Case Information
*1 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
‐‐‐‐ ooOoo ‐‐‐‐ Utah, ) PER CURIAM DECISION
) Case No.
Plaintiff Appellee, ) )
v. ) F I L E D ) (November 2012) Ted Gerald Finchum, )
) UT 331 Defendant Appellant. )
‐‐‐‐‐
First District, Logan Department, Honorable Clint S. Judkins
Attorneys: David M. Perry, Logan, Appellant
Mark Shurtleff Ryan D. Tenney, Salt Lake City, Appellee ‐‐‐‐‐
Before Judges Thorne, Roth.
Ted Gerald appeals sentences after pleading guilty two counts abuse child. its
discretion Prison.
¶2 We review court, including decision grant deny probation, abuse discretion. App
1167. “An judge consider
legally factors, is clearly excessive.”
Id.
(citation
quotation marks omitted). “[a]n appellate abuse
can said [person] trial
Id.
(alteration original) (citation quotation marks omitted). Finally, “defendant entitled probation, but rather empowered place
*2
defendant on probation if it thinks that will best serve the ends of justice and is
compatible the public interest.”
v. Rhodes
,
¶3 Finchum argues that the district court its in sentencing fifteen years to life in prison because the district court failed to consider all relevant factors. Utah Code section 76 ‐ 5 ‐ 404.1(6) states that when a court imposes a sentence for of a child, the court impose a lesser sentence than the presumptive years to life mandated the provision if the court finds that such a lesser sentence “is in the interests of justice and states the reasons for this finding on the record.” Utah Code Ann. § 76 ‐ 5 ‐ 404.1(6) (LexisNexis Supp. 2012). Finchum asserts were mitigating circumstances existing in this case that warranted lesser sentence. Specifically, Finchum points out that (1) he had prior history such offenses, (2) he turned himself in and was cooperative law enforcement, (3) he was remorseful, (4) continues to have strong supportive familial relationships, (5) he a low risk recidivism a good candidate treatment. Finchum also points out that the presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended a lesser of ten to in prison. He that the district court appropriately considered these factors it would have a lesser penalty. Contrary Finchum’s assertion, the record that the district court consider all circumstances prior imposing a sentence. During the
sentencing hearing, addressed the court expressed regret actions.
Finchum’s counsel highlighted these mitigating circumstances in his
argument the court during sentencing. Further, the contains the Finchum’s psychosexual evaluation PSI report. Prior sentencing Finchum, the
court stated that it “carefully considered facts circumstances this
case [could not] a lesser term . . . in interests justice.”
Because all mitigating information believes should
have considered sentencing set forth PSI, psychosexual
evaluation, discussed during hearing, presume the
information prior sentencing.
v. Moa
, 2012 UT
¶ 35,
support court’s decision. special position trust victims, sexually both victims multiple times over years, i.e., not one isolated incident. found victims showed signs psychological trauma associated abuse. Based upon evidence presented, cannot say person “would trial 14. Accordingly, Finchum. ¶6 Affirmed.
____________________________________
Gregory K. Judge
____________________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
____________________________________
Stephen Roth, Judge