legally relevant factors in Utah

2025Mitigating Factors ¶40 “In general, a trial court’s sentencing decision will not be overturned unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 59 , 191 P.3d 17 (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lowther, 2017 UT 34 , 398 P.3d 1032 .

2025Mitigating Factors ¶40 “In general, a trial court’s sentencing decision will not be overturned unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 59 , 191 P.3d 17 (cleaned up), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lowther, 2017 UT 34 , 398 P.3d 1032 .

2016A sentencing court abuses its discretion if it imposes a sentence that is inherently unfair, clearly excessive, or illegal, see State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649, 651 (Utah Ct. App. 1997), if it “failfs] to consider all the legally relevant factors,” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 59 , 191 P.3d 17 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted), or if “no reasonable person would take the view” it adopts, Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14 , 82 P.3d 1167 (alteration, citation, and internal quotation marks omitted).

2014Certainly “a trial court may abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence without considering all the legally relevant factors.” State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649, 651 (Utah Ct.App.1997).

2015See State v. Gibbons, 779 P.2d 1133, 1135 (Utah 1989) (noting that an appellate court will not set aside a sentencing decision so long as the judge considers all the legally relevant factors and imposes a sentence inside the applicable range set by statute). 71 .

1997In addition, a trial court may abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence without considering all the legally relevant factors, see State v. Montoya, 929 P.2d 356, 358 (Utah.Ct.App.1996), or in imposing a sentence which exceeds the limits prescribed by law, see State v. Gibbons, 779 P.2d 1133, 1135 (Utah 1989); State v. Snyder, 747 P.2d 417, 422 (Utah 1987).

2020(Quoting State v. Sanchez, 2015 UT App 58, ¶ 5 , 346 P.3d 701 (quotation simplified).) We disagree.

2015Accordingly, “[w]e will not overturn a sentence unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion.” State v. Sotolongo, 2003 UT App 214, ¶ 3 , 73 P.3d 991 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 31 . ¶6 First, Sanchez argues the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying his request for a section 402(1) reduction 20121030-CA 3 2015 UT App 58 State v. Sanchez because a conviction for a class A mis

2021We will not overturn a district court’s sentencing decision unless the sentence “exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the [court] failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the [court] were . . . inherently unfair.” Id. ¶ 59 (quotation simplified); see also State v. Gasper, 2018 UT App 164, ¶ 26 , 436 P.3d 200 (stating that we review sentencing determinations for “an abuse of discretion,” reversing “only if no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court” (quotation simplified)). ¶14 Finally, Littlejohn asserts that Counsel was constitu

2021We will not overturn a district court’s sentencing decision unless the sentence “exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the [court] failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the [court] were . . . inherently unfair.” Id. ¶ 59 (quotation simplified); see also State v. Gasper, 2018 UT App 164, ¶ 26 , 436 P.3d 200 (stating that we review sentencing determinations for “an abuse of discretion,” reversing “only if no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court” (quotation simplified)). ¶14 Finally, Littlejohn asserts that Counsel was constitu

2018See State v. Williams , 2006 UT App 420 , ¶ 30, 147 P.3d 497 .

2018See State v. Williams , 2006 UT App 420 , ¶ 30, 147 P.3d 497 .

2017See Miera, 2015 UT App 46, ¶ 5 , 346 P.3d 761 (citation and internal' quotation marks omitted). ¶ 11 The fact that the district court was not as lenient in sentencing as Defendant would have preferred does not compel an inference that the court failed to consider all of the legally relevant factors or that the court’s actions in ordering prison time were inherently unfair.

2017Cf. State v. Cline, 2017 UT App 50, ¶ 7 (describing the circumstances under which a trial court’s sentencing decision may be disturbed).

2016See State v. Bunker, 2015 UT App. 255, ¶ 5 , 361 P.3d 155 (rejecting the appellant’s contention that the sentencing court had abused its discretion where the court had considered all the legally relevant factors and the appellant’s “argument [came] down to a disagreement with the [sentencing] court’s weighing of the relevant sentencing factors”).

2016See State v. Bunker, 2015 UT App. 255, ¶ 5 , 361 P.3d 155 (rejecting the appellant’s contention that the sentencing court had abused its discretion where the court had considered all the legally relevant factors and the appellant’s “argument [came] down to a disagreement with the [sentencing] court’s weighing of the relevant sentencing factors”).

2015See Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, 117 , 299 P.3d 1058 ; see also State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶7 , 289 P.3d 444 (noting that "[alpplying the wrong legal standard . will always exceed" a judge's discretion). 72 .

2015See Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, 117 , 299 P.3d 1058 ; see also State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶7 , 289 P.3d 444 (noting that "[alpplying the wrong legal standard . will always exceed" a judge's discretion). 72 .

2015Accordingly, "[wle will not overturn a sentence unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion." State v. Sotolongo, 2003 UT App 214, ¶3 , 73 P.3d 991 {citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶31 , 25 P.3d 985 . 16 First, Sanchez argues the trial court exeeeded its discretion in denying his request for a section 402(1) reduction because a conviction for a class A misdemeanor would be unduly harsh and

2015Accordingly, “[w]e will not overturn a sentence unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion.” State v. Sotolongo, 2003 UT App 214, ¶ 3 , 73 P.3d 991 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Boyd, 2001 UT 30, ¶ 31 . ¶6 First, Sanchez argues the trial court exceeded its discretion in denying his request for a section 402(1) reduction 20121030-CA 3 2015 UT App 58 State v. Sanchez because a conviction for a class A mis

2015See Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, 117 , 299 P.3d 1058 ; see also State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶7 , 289 P.3d 444 (noting that "[alpplying the wrong legal standard . will always exceed" a judge's discretion). 72 .

2015See Snow, Christensen & Martineau v. Lindberg, 2013 UT 15, 117 , 299 P.3d 1058 ; see also State v. Ramirez, 2012 UT 59, ¶7 , 289 P.3d 444 (noting that "[alpplying the wrong legal standard . will always exceed" a judge's discretion). 72 .

2011"An appellate court may only find abuse if it can be said that no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court." State v. Houk, 906 P.2d 907, 909 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (per curiam) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶3 Duran argues that the trial court abused its discretion because it failed to consider all legally relevant factors in reaching its sentencing decision and that it imposed an excessive sentence.

2003We will not overturn a sentence unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider "all *993 the legally relevant factors," State v. Schweitzer, 948 P.2d 649 , 651 (Utah Ct.App.1997), or "the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute abuse of discretion." Rhodes, 818 P.2d at 1051 (emphasis omitted).

2002"A sentence will not be overturned on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion, failed to consider all legally relevant factors, or imposed a sentence that exceeds legally prescribed limits." State v. Nuttall, 861 P.2d 454, 456 (Utah Ct. App.1993).

2002State v. Arellano, 964 P.2d 1167, 1169 (Utah Ct.App.1998). 1 25 Finally, Perez contends the trial court erred by not considering all the legally relevant factors before imposing consecutive sentences.

1997However, this court may find an abuse of discretion only if we conclude that “no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” State v. Gerrard, 584 P.2d 885, 887 (Utah 1978).

1997In addition, a trial court may abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence without considering all the legally relevant factors, see State v. Montoya, 929 P.2d 356, 358 (Utah.Ct.App.1996), or in imposing a sentence which exceeds the limits prescribed by law, see State v. Gibbons, 779 P.2d 1133, 1135 (Utah 1989); State v. Snyder, 747 P.2d 417, 422 (Utah 1987).

1997In addition, a trial court may abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence without considering all the legally relevant factors, see State v. Montoya, 929 P.2d 356, 358 (Utah.Ct.App.1996), or in imposing a sentence which exceeds the limits prescribed by law, see State v. Gibbons, 779 P.2d 1133, 1135 (Utah 1989); State v. Snyder, 747 P.2d 417, 422 (Utah 1987).