State v. Nance

Decision Date12 March 1968
Docket NumberNo. 10964,10964
Citation20 Utah 2d 372,438 P.2d 542
Partiesd 372 STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Delton Ray NANCE, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtUtah Supreme Court

Dudley Crafts, Delta, for appellant.

Phil L. Hansen, Atty. Gen., D. Gilbert Athay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for respondent.

CALLISTER, Justice:

Delton Ray Nance was charged by an information with issuing a check against insufficient funds in the sum of $13.32. Defendant's acts as charged are in violation of Section 76--20--11, U.C.A.1953, Supp.1967, and constitute a felony. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the statute under which he was charged violated the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and Sections 7, 9 and 24 of Article I, and Section 26 of Article VI of the Utah Constitution.

The trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant waived trial by jury, and after a trial before the court, the judge found him guilty as charged and sentenced him to the Utah State Prison for a term not to exceed five years. The sentence imposed was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed in another criminal case against defendant for issuing a check against insufficient funds.

A violation of Section 76--20--11, U.C.A.1953, Supp.1967, 'is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison for not more than five years.'

Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss because Section 76--20--11 constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment which is prohibited by both the state and federal constitutions. He argues that Utah is the only state which makes the issuance of a check against insufficient funds a felony regardless of the amount of the check. He claims that in most states insufficient funds checks up to $25 are misdemeanors. He further alleges that other offenses of a greater magnitude than issuing an insufficient funds check are misdemeanors in the State of Utah.

Defendant reasons that a felony conviction in modern day society has consequences for beyond the prospect of incarceration, such as deprivation of certain civil liberties, and a stringent curtailment of future educational and employment opportunities. He, therefore, contends that a felony conviction for issuing an insufficient funds check, regardless of amount, constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment and Section 76--20--11 is unconstitutional.

Whether a punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments is cruel or unusual cannot be considered in the abstract. 1 The constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment was directed not only against punishments which inflict torture but against all punishments which by their excessive length or severity are greatly disproportionate to the offenses charged. 2

The issue squarely presented by the instant case is whether the penalty imposed by the legislature in Section 76--20--11 is so disproportionate to the offense that it exhibits an unrestrained exercise of power in clear disregard of constitutional limitations. We are compelled to answer in the negative. What constitutes an adequate penalty is a matter of legislative judgment and discretion, unless the penalty prescribed is clearly and manifestly cruel and unusual. 3 In the instant action, there is in fact no basis for this court to interfere with the legitimate exercise of legislative power merely because that body has deemed it inadvisable to classify the penalties for insufficient funds checks violations on the basis of the monetary amount involved.

Defendant further contends that the trial court erred in its sentencing of him to a term of not more than five years to the state prison. His argument is that the imposition of the maximum sentence for a check of $13.32 is so excessive as to constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

Generally if the statute fixing the punishment be not unconstitutional, a sentence within the limits prescribed by such a statute will not be regarded as cruel and unusual. However, where there is a wide spread between the minimum and maximum punishment, whether any particular sentence is cruel or unusual is a matter to be determined under all the facts and circumstances. 4 We cannot impose our judgment on the trial court. Our inquiry is limited to the question of whether the sentence imposed in proportion to the offense committed is such as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right and proper under the circumstances. 5

What are the circumstances in the instant action? The statements...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Gardner
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • September 30, 1997
    ...765 P.2d 902, 904 (Utah 1988))); see also Andrews, 843 P.2d at 1030; State v. Hanson, 627 P.2d 53, 56 (Utah 1981); State v. Nance, 20 Utah 2d 372, 438 P.2d 542, 544 (1968). 3 We have also held that a statutory scheme for the imposition of a capital sentence must be "structured to provide re......
  • State v. Houston, 20080625
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • March 13, 2015
    ...emanate. See id. (citing State v. Hanson, 627 P.2d 53, 56 (Utah 1981) (federal Eighth Amendment claim; citing, in turn, State v. Nance, 438 P.2d 542, 544 (Utah 1968) (articulating Eighth Amendment proportionality standard under Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910))). ¶ 144 There is o......
  • State v. Houston
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2015
    ...See id. (citing State v. Hanson, 627 P.2d 53, 56 (Utah 1981) (federal Eighth Amendment claim; citing, in turn, State v. Nance, 20 Utah 2d 372, 438 P.2d 542, 544 (1968) (articulating Eighth Amendment proportionality standard under Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 30 S.Ct. 544, 54 L.Ed. ......
  • State v. Houston, 20080625
    • United States
    • Utah Supreme Court
    • February 24, 2015
    ...emanate. See id. (citing State v. Hanson, 627 P.2d 53, 56 (Utah 1981) (federal Eighth Amendment claim; citing, in turn, State v. Nance, 438 P.2d 542, 544 (Utah 1968) (articulating Eighth Amendment proportionality standard under Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349 (1910))). ¶ 144 There is o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT