State v. Dente

• Docket Number: 20240688-CA
• Decision Date: 26 June 2025
• Citation: State v. Dente, 2025 UT App 95, 20240688-CA (Utah App. Jun 26, 2025)
• Parties: State of Utah, Appellee, v. Dakota Anthony Dente, Appellant.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

1

2025 UT App 95

State of Utah, Appellee, v. Dakota Anthony Dente, Appellant.

No. 20240688-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah

June 26, 2025

Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Paul B ParkerNo. 211903226

Janet Lawrence, Attorney for Appellant

Derek E. Brown and Aubrey Bisbee, Attorneys for Appellee

Judge Ryan M. Harris authored this Opinion, in which Judges Michele M. Christiansen Forster and Ryan D. Tenney concurred.

HARRIS, JUDGE

¶1 Soon after pleading guilty to a felony sex crime, Dakota Anthony Dente sought to withdraw his plea, asserting that it had not been knowingly and voluntarily made.The district court denied Dente's motion, and Dente appeals, claiming that when he entered the plea, he had insufficient information regarding available defenses, that he was not advised of some of the consequences of sex-offender registration, and that his attorney had pressured him into accepting the State's plea offer.We affirm the district court's denial of Dente's motion because, under the circumstances presented here, Dente has failed to demonstrate that the court abused its discretion in determining that his plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.

BACKGROUND^[1]

¶2 In September 2020, Dente, Tonya, and Madison^[2] went "to a friend's house to play games, drink wine, and get in the hot tub."At one point during the evening, Tonya briefly walked outside of the apartment, and when she returned, she saw Dente and Madison lying on a couch, with Dente on top of Madison.Both Dente and Madison had their pants off.Tonya left the room because she did "[n]ot want[] to see that," and she found another room where she could sleep.Later that evening, Tonya "woke up to someone taking off her swimsuit bottoms."She recalled that the person "licked her vagina, and then . . . put his penis into her vagina."Tonya said that the person eventually withdrew and rolled onto his back, and that when he did, she recognized the person as Dente.At that point, she"jumped out of bed and confronted" him, and in response, Dente said, "I thought you were [Madison]."

¶3The State eventually charged Dente with two first-degree-felony counts of rape (one related to Madison and one related to Tonya) and one first-degree-felony count of forcible sodomy (related to Tonya).Later, about a week before trial, Dente accepted an offer from the State.Per the arrangement, Dente agreed to plead guilty to one third-degree-felony count of forcible sexual abuse in exchange for the dismissal of all other charges and the State's agreement not to recommend prison at sentencing.

¶4The district court held a hearing to consider Dente's change of plea, and during that hearing, Dente signed a written statement in support of the plea.In the statement Dente admitted that he"touched the pubic area of [Tonya] and [Madison] with the intent to arouse [his] own sexual desire" and that he did so "[without] their consent."Dente also affirmed that he understood the potential penalties he faced-including up to five years in prison-and the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty and he acknowledged that he was voluntarily entering his plea.During the hearing, the district court conducted a robust colloquy with Dente.In this colloquy, Dente stated among other things, that he had read and understood the plea agreement document, that he understood he would be put on the sex-offender registry, and that he understood the "possible penalties for a third-degree felony."Dente also confirmed that the factual basis for his plea was correct.At the end of the colloquy, the court accepted Dente's plea and found that it had been "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made."

¶5 A few weeks later, before he had been sentenced, Dente filed a motion to withdraw his plea through his newly obtained attorney (Counsel 4).The court held an evidentiary hearing on Dente's motion, and Dente testified.In his testimony, Dente explained that, during the course of the case, he had been represented by four different attorneys.He stated that his first attorney (Counsel 1) had investigated possible defense witnesses and had put together an investigation report, but Dente testified that he did not ever see the results of this report.Counsel 1 later had to withdraw, and a replacement attorney (Counsel 2) then took over.But Dente "didn't feel comfortable" with Counsel 2, so Dente hired another attorney (Counsel 3), who was Dente's counsel of record during the plea negotiations.

¶6 Dente offered his view that Counsel 3 had failed to advise him adequately in several key respects.First, Dente recalled discussing the complainants' allegations with Counsel 3, "but no possible defenses."Dente also testified that when he asked Counsel 3 about Counsel 1's investigation report, Counsel 3 said he knew what was in the report but Counsel 3 "never . . . show[ed Dente] the evidence."Next, Dente testified that Counsel 3 told him he would be sentenced to probation, without any jail time.Dente acknowledged that Counsel 3 also told him that, as part of his sentence, he would be listed on the sex-offender registry for ten years, but he explained that Counsel 3 did not specifically advise him that being listed on the sex-offender registry would affect his ability to visit his son's school or daycare.

¶7 Sometime after Dente entered his plea, he realized that- due to his placement on the sex-offender registry-he would not be permitted to attend any of his son's school functions.He apparently also realized that he was not guaranteed to be afforded the privilege of probation.Dente then questioned Counsel 3 about those issues, and during that discussion, Dente learned that Counsel 3 didn't have a copy of Counsel 1's investigation report.

¶8 Dente testified that he then hired Counsel 4.Dente said that Counsel 4 obtained and reviewed a copy of Counsel 1's investigation report and advised Dente that the report referenced a video of Madison "dancing for [Dente] in an erotic manner" on the night of the hot-tub party.The report also referenced a witness who had apparently seen Dente and Madison having consensual sex that night.However, the video was not shown at the evidentiary hearing, nor did the witness testify at the hearing.Toward the end of his testimony, Dente acknowledged that the decision to plead guilty had been "[his] own" and had been made "with . . . the advice of"Counsel 3.But Dente maintained that he would not have entered the plea if he had known that Counsel 3 did not have a copy of the investigation report.

¶9 Dente's mother(Mother) and father(Father) also testified at the evidentiary hearing.Both Mother and Father stated that they sat in on conversations between Dente and Counsel 3, and they offered their views that Counsel 3 had pressured Dente to take the State's plea offer.Father testified that Counsel 3 made statements like, "We have to take this position, it's too risky not to," and, "Just take the deal.You got a 50/50 chance.There's two women.If [there was only] one woman, maybe the chance, but two women, no way."Mother added that Counsel 3 told Dente, "You need to take this deal," and that Counsel 3 told the family to "[g]o home and think about it."

¶10 At the conclusion of the hearing, the district court made an oral ruling denying Dente's motion.The court found that Counsel 1 had investigated possible witnesses and had generated a report, but that the report had not been shared with Counsel 3 before Dente entered his plea.Even so, the court found that Counsel 3 "knew what was in the report" when he advised Dente to plead guilty.The court also expressed doubts about whether the erotic dance video would have been admissible at trial, as well as about the strength of that evidence even had it been admitted.The court further observed that, during the plea colloquy, it had warned Dente of the sex-offender-registration requirement and had told him that the court was not bound to follow the sentencing recommendation in the plea agreement.

¶11 As for the allegations of Counsel 3's pressure on Dente to accept the plea offer, the court recognized that Counsel 3 had "pitched" the plea offer "as a good deal" to Dente and his parents, and the court offered its own view that, "frankly, it was [a good deal]."The court reasoned that "[s]everal first-degree felonies" were reduced "down to one [third-degree felony] that include[d] both" complaining witnesses, and it observed that this was, "in fact, a significant reduction of the charges."The court also found that Dente and his family were "given some time to think about" the plea offer and that, during the plea colloquy, Dente confirmed that he had "talked to his attorney" and "felt like he understood what he was doing."Finally, the court found that Dente admitted he had "touched two girls and was guilty of that."For these reasons, the court found that Dente's guilty plea had been "intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily made."

¶12 After denying Dente's motion, the court scheduled a sentencing hearing.At that later hearing, the court sentenced Dente to an indeterminate prison term of up to five years, but it suspended that sentence and, instead, placed Dente on probation for forty-eight months and ordered him to serve ninety days in jail and comply with other conditions.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶13 Dente now appeals the district court's denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.We"reverse a district court's ruling on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea only when we are convinced that the court has abused its discretion,"State v. Ciccolelli, 2019 UT App 102, ¶ 9, 445 P.3d 528(cleaned up), but we"incorporat[e] the clearly erroneous standard for the trial court's findings of...