State v. Carson, 15627
| Decision Date | 18 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 15627,15627 |
| Citation | 597 P.2d 862 |
| Parties | The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Brent A. CARSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Salt Lake Legal Defender Assn., Lynn R. Brown, Salt Lake City, for defendant and appellant.
Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., William W. Barrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., R. Paul VanDam, Salt Lake County Atty., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
The defendant was charged with three first degree felonies: aggravated sexual assault, aggravated robbery, and aggravated burglary. Negotiations between counsel resulted in the defendant's pleading guilty to a charge of rape, an offense included within the charge of aggravated sexual assault. The other charges were dismissed.
On October 11, 1977, the court committed the defendant to the Division of Corrections for a diagnostic evaluation pursuant to Section 76-3-404, Utah Code Annotated (1953), as amended, which reads:
76-3-404. Pre-sentence investigation Commitment of defendant Sentencing procedure. (1) In felony cases where the court is of the opinion that imprisonment may be appropriate but desires more detailed information as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed than has been provided by the pre-sentence report, the court may, in its discretion, commit a convicted defendant to the custody of the division of corrections for a period not exceeding ninety days. The division of corrections shall conduct a complete study of the defendant during that time, inquiring into such matters as the defendant's previous delinquency or criminal experience, his social background, his capabilities, his mental, emotional and physical health, and the rehabilitative resources or programs which may be available to suit his needs. By the expiration of the period of commitment, or by the expiration of the additional time as the court shall grant, not exceeding a further period of ninety days, the defendant shall be returned to the court for sentencing, and the court, prosecutor, and the defendant or his attorney shall be provided with a written report of results of the study, including whatever recommendations the division of corrections believes will be helpful to a proper resolution of the case. After receiving the report and recommendations, the court shall proceed to sentence a defendant in accordance with the sentencing alternatives provided under section 76-3-201.
Also on October 11 the court set January 6, 1978, for sentencing.
On December 13, 1977, the court modified the October 11 order by committing the defendant to the sex offender program at the Utah State Hospital. There is no indication that the judge intended this modification to change the original diagnostic evaluation period.
At the end of the evaluation period on January 6, 1978, defendant appeared for sentencing before a different trial judge. At that time the Division of Corrections submitted a report of its evaluation and requested an additional ninety-day evaluation period in which to determine whether defendant would be a suitable candidate for placement in the sexual offender program for long-term treatment. The judge expressly indicated that he had reviewed the whole history of the defendant and inquired whether there was any legal reason why sentence should not be imposed. None was expressed, and the judge sentenced the defendant to prison for the term provided by law for a second-degree felony, one to fifteen years.
On appeal defendant claims (1) that the sentencing judge abused his discretion by not ordering a second ninety-day diagnostic evaluation as requested by the Division of Corrections, and (2) that he did not have a sufficient factual basis on which to sentence him. There is no merit to either claim.
As to defendant's first claim, the statute is clear that the ninety-day pre-sentence evaluation which a judge may request pursuant to Section 76-3-404 is a tool available to a sentencing judge, if he " . . . desires more detailed information as a basis for determining the sentence to be imposed . . . ." The recommendations contained in the evaluation report are not binding, and the judge may determine the extent to which conclusions in the report should be accorded weight in the pronouncement of the sentence. Likewise, according to the language of Section 76-3-404, the decision to order an additional evaluation, such as requested by the Division of Corrections in this case, lies within the discretion of the trial judge, and there is no showing in this record of an abuse of that discretion.
As to the defendant's second claim, it should be noted that the sentencing judge's discretion in sentencing may be based on several sources of information, but that discretion does not extend to imposition of a sentence made in total ignorance of the background of the defendant. In State v. Sibert, 6 Utah 2d 198, 205, 310 P.2d 388, 393 (1957), the Court indicated that there are limits to the scope of discretion accorded a trial judge:
These matters, which are to be considered in connection with the prior record of the accused, are of such nature that the problem of probation must of necessity rest within the discretion of the judge who hears the case. This is not to say that if it were clearly shown that the trial judge would have granted probation except for some wholly irrelevant, improper or inconsequential consideration, such refusal might be so capricious and arbitrary as to warrant the conclusion that he did not in fact exercise his discretion and justify a review of his action.
When a judge undertakes to impose a sentence, he should be familiar with the pre-sentence report and whatever diagnostic evaluations have been conducted. Of course the exercise of discretion in a manner unfavorable to the defendant does not indicate an abuse of discretion, State v. Plum, 14 Utah 2d 124, 378 P.2d 671 (1963); but there are circumstances in which a sentencing judge transgresses the limits of his discretion. 1
While it is preferable that the judge who takes a defendant's plea be the same as the judge who sentences that defendant, 2 it is not essential that they be the same. The difficulties that arise from the scheduling assignments of trial judges in a multi-judge district sometimes make it impossible for the same judge to sit in both capacities. Especially in cases in which the trial judge is different from the sentencing judge, it is incumbent on the judge who imposes sentence to be familiar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lipsky
...ought to enhance the likelihood that the trial court will sentence a defendant on the basis of accurate information. In State v. Carson, Utah, 597 P.2d 862, 866 (1979), the Court stated:Given the volume of cases handled by the courts, sentencing may be based on errors which, if made known t......
-
State v. Nunley
...158 Mich.App. 113, 404 N.W.2d 230, 231 (1987); People v. Gomez, 103 Misc.2d 352, 425 N.Y.S.2d 776, 778 (N.Y.Co.Ct.1980); State v. Carson, 597 P.2d 862, 865 (Utah 1979). It is preferable for the judge to whom defendant pleads guilty to also sentence defendant. Id. The reason for this prefere......
-
Dieudonne v. State
...than to have the judge who took his plea sentence him, the defendant could properly be sentenced by a different judge); State v. Carson, 597 P.2d 862, 865 (Utah 1979) (stating that "[w]hile it is preferable that the judge who takes a defendant's plea be the same as the judge who sentences t......
-
People v. Simmons
...the defendant had no right to have the same judge preside over both the plea acceptance and the sentencing. Additionally, in State v. Carson, 597 P.2d 862 [Utah 1979], the Supreme Court of Utah held that while it may be preferable for the same judge who accepted the plea to also sentence th......