Magness pleaded guilty to three amended counts of sexual abuse of a child. At sentencing, Defendant was sentenced to three incarceration terms, two of which the court ordered to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed the sentence arguing that based on the facts, he was entitled to serve all sentences concurrently. The Utah Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant, finding that the court had indeed considered all the required factors prior to making its ruling. However, because of Defendant’s argument that because a different charge was listed on the judgment, the Court of Appeals Reversed the trial court’s sentence and Remanded the case to the trial court to have the trial court consider whether the misstatement as to the charges influenced the sentence (particularly as to consecutive terms) and to adjust the sentence accordingly.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
If the Court Considered all the Factors the Sentence will be Upheld.
State of Utah v. Magness, 2009 UT App. 402, (Utah
Magness pleaded guilty to three amended counts of sexual abuse of a child. At sentencing, Defendant was sentenced to three incarceration terms, two of which the court ordered to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed the sentence arguing that based on the facts, he was entitled to serve all sentences concurrently. The Utah Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant, finding that the court had indeed considered all the required factors prior to making its ruling. However, because of Defendant’s argument that because a different charge was listed on the judgment, the Court of Appeals Reversed the trial court’s sentence and Remanded the case to the trial court to have the trial court consider whether the misstatement as to the charges influenced the sentence (particularly as to consecutive terms) and to adjust the sentence accordingly.
Magness pleaded guilty to three amended counts of sexual abuse of a child. At sentencing, Defendant was sentenced to three incarceration terms, two of which the court ordered to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed the sentence arguing that based on the facts, he was entitled to serve all sentences concurrently. The Utah Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendant, finding that the court had indeed considered all the required factors prior to making its ruling. However, because of Defendant’s argument that because a different charge was listed on the judgment, the Court of Appeals Reversed the trial court’s sentence and Remanded the case to the trial court to have the trial court consider whether the misstatement as to the charges influenced the sentence (particularly as to consecutive terms) and to adjust the sentence accordingly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment