Angry Judge is Not a Violation of Constitutional Rights

Angry Judge is Not a Violation of Constitutional Rights

State v. Munguia, 2011 UT 5 (Utah Supreme Court, January 14, 2011).

Munguia was pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted aggravated sexual abuse and two counts of sexual abuse and was sentenced to two consecutive sentences of three years to life, and two additional sentences of one to fifteen years.  In addition to the sentence, the Judge went on to lecture Defendant as to how his actions affected the victim and ended with the 4 sentences running consecutively.  Defendant did not object at the time of sentencing.  Defendant Appealed.

Defendant’s brief failed to discuss the constitutionality of the sentence and focused only on when a Judge should recuse himself.

The Court of Appeals found that the lecture by the judge did not show his bias against the Defendant as an individual, but bias against the crime that was allegedly committed.  Because it was not against the individual this bias would not require the judge to recuse.  Further, the sentence did not give rise to exceptional circumstances.  The sentence was within the sentencing guidelines for the crimes committed.  As such the district court sentence is affirmed.

Full Decision available at http://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/Munguia011411.pdf