change of plea hearing in Utah

2025“Because there was no preliminary hearing or trial in this case, we recite the facts related to the underlying criminal activity as alleged in the charging information and contained in [the written agreement] submitted to the court at the change-of-plea hearing.” State v. Badikyan, 2018 UT App 168 , ¶ 2 n.1, 436 P.3d 256 , aff’d, 2020 UT 3 , 459 P.3d 967 . 2.

2025“Because there was no preliminary hearing or trial in this case, we recite the facts related to the underlying criminal activity as alleged in the charging information and contained in [the written agreement] submitted to the court at the change-of-plea hearing.” State v. Badikyan, 2018 UT App 168 , ¶ 2 n.1, 436 P.3d 256 , aff’d, 2020 UT 3 , 459 P.3d 967 . 2.

2022During the change of plea hearing, in support of his pleas, Aitken executed and submitted a Statement of Defendant 20200420-CA 2 2022 UT App 21 State v. Aitken in Support of Guilty Plea and Certificate of Counsel (the Statement), wherein he acknowledged that he had enough time to consult with Plea Counsel, was “satisfied with his advice and assistance,” and understood that by pleading guilty, he would be admitting that he committed the crimes listed in the Statement.

2022During the change of plea hearing, in support of his pleas, Aitken executed and submitted a Statement of Defendant 20200420-CA 2 2022 UT App 21 State v. Aitken in Support of Guilty Plea and Certificate of Counsel (the Statement), wherein he acknowledged that he had enough time to consult with Plea Counsel, was “satisfied with his advice and assistance,” and understood that by pleading guilty, he would be admitting that he committed the crimes listed in the Statement.

2025“Because there was no preliminary hearing or trial in this case, we recite the facts related to the underlying criminal activity as alleged in the charging information and contained in [the written agreement] submitted to the court at the change-of-plea hearing.” State v. Badikyan, 2018 UT App 168 , ¶ 2 n.1, 436 P.3d 256 , aff’d, 2020 UT 3 , 459 P.3d 967 . 2.

2025“Because there was no preliminary hearing or trial in this case, we recite the facts related to the underlying criminal activity as alleged in the charging information and contained in [the written agreement] submitted to the court at the change-of-plea hearing.” State v. Badikyan, 2018 UT App 168 , ¶ 2 n.1, 436 P.3d 256 , aff’d, 2020 UT 3 , 459 P.3d 967 . 2.

2025Tonya and Madison are pseudonyms. 20240688-CA 2 2025 UT App 95 State v. Dente ¶4 The 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.

2025In the written statement memorializing the plea agreement, Hembree admitted, among other things, that he “had sexual intercourse with a thirteen year old female on two separate occasions,” that he “penetrated another thirteen year old female’s vagina with a vibrator and his fingers,” and that his phone contained not only “three nude depictions” of one of the thirteen-year-old girls but also “345 images of child pornography.” And that same plea form—which Hembree signed—advised him that if he wished to appeal his sentence, he “must file a notice of appeal within 30 days after [his] sentence [wa

2025In this case, Hembree was so advised: in the plea statement he signed, he was 20230888-CA 10 2025 UT App 166 State v. Hembree informed that he had the right to appeal his sentence within thirty days, and at the change-of-plea hearing, the court advised Hembree that his right to appeal was limited. 2 ¶25 Second, our rules require district courts, at the time of sentencing, to “advise the defendant of defendant’s right to appeal, the time within which any appeal must be filed and the right to retain counsel or have counsel appointed by the court if indigent.” See id.

2023An “Alford plea is a type of guilty plea in which a defendant does not expressly admit his guilt, but nonetheless waives his right to a trial and authorizes the court for purposes of the case to treat him as if he were guilty.” State v. Walton, 2019 UT App 187 , ¶ 1 n.1, 455 P.3d 1066 (quotation simplified).

2023An “Alford plea is a type of guilty plea in which a defendant does not expressly admit his guilt, but nonetheless waives his right to a trial and authorizes the court for purposes of the case to treat him as if he were guilty.” State v. Walton, 2019 UT App 187 , ¶ 1 n.1, 455 P.3d 1066 (quotation simplified).

2023But at the change of plea hearing and in the written minutes, the district court chose to accept the plea as being a “no (continued…) 20210063-CA 2 2023 UT App 23 State v. Edwards ¶5 The district court initially scheduled a sentencing hearing for April 2020, but the court later pushed sentencing back to August 31, 2020, due to the COVID-19 outbreak.

2023As has been codified for many years in rule 11(j) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, “[a] Sery plea is a conditional plea in which a defendant pleads guilty . . . but reserves the right to appeal the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress certain (continued…) 20180322-CA 9 2023 UT App 53 State v. Crutcher agreement voluntarily.

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2020Mr. Badikyan’s trial counsel stated at the hearing that the interpreter translated the plea agreement “verbatim word-for-word,” and trial counsel was confident Mr. Badikyan understood the agreement. _____________________________________________________________ 1 UTAH CODE § 77-13-6. 2 2017 UT 83 , 416 P.3d 520 . 3 2017 UT 84 , 416 P.3d 546 . 4 This holding is identical to our holding in State v. Flora, 2020 UT 2 , -- P.3d ---, issued concurrently with this opinion. 2 Cite as: 2020 UT 3 Opinion of the Court Mr. Badikyan also confirmed in a plea colloquy that his plea was voluntary and that he h

2019But after she moved to withdraw her guilty plea on that basis, the district court listened to the audio recording of the change of plea hearing, reviewed 20180258-CA 4 2019 UT App 154 State v. Enriquez-Meza its contemporaneous notes, and found that the transcript was incorrect and that her actual response was “guilty.” The court also pointed to the next line in the transcript, in which the court responds, “I’ll receive and accept the guilty plea.” Enriquez- Meza did not inform the court at that time that she was not pleading guilty. ¶10 Enriquez-Meza challenges the district court’s finding tha

2019But after she moved to withdraw her guilty plea on that basis, the district court listened to the audio recording of the change of plea hearing, reviewed 20180258-CA 4 2019 UT App 154 State v. Enriquez-Meza its contemporaneous notes, and found that the transcript was incorrect and that her actual response was “guilty.” The court also pointed to the next line in the transcript, in which the court responds, “I’ll receive and accept the guilty plea.” Enriquez- Meza did not inform the court at that time that she was not pleading guilty. ¶10 Enriquez-Meza challenges the district court’s finding tha

2019The district court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and its conclusion “regarding substantial compliance with constitutional and procedural requirements for entry of a guilty plea is . . . reviewed for correctness.” Id. ¶9 Relying on the transcript from the change of plea hearing, Enriquez-Meza contends that she answered “yes” rather than “guilty” when asked to enter her plea.

2018"Constitutional issues, including questions regarding due process, are questions of law that we review for correctness." Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network , 2012 UT 84 , ¶ 47, 299 P.3d 990 (quotation simplified).

2018"Constitutional issues, including questions regarding due process, are questions of law that we review for correctness." Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network , 2012 UT 84 , ¶ 47, 299 P.3d 990 (quotation simplified).

2017However, the doctrine of plain error “is not available to a party who had invited the error that he or she later seeks to raise on appeal.” State v. Hoffman, 2017 UT App 70, ¶ 4 , 397 P.3d 789 (per curiam); see also Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 . ¶4 Sanchez pleaded no contest to amended charges in three cases. 1 The record reflects that the district court ordered a PSI shortly after the change of plea hearing held on October 3, 2016.

2017However, the doctrine of plain error “is not available to a party who had invited the error that he or she later seeks to raise on appeal.” State v. Hoffman, 2017 UT App 70, ¶ 4 , 397 P.3d 789 (per curiam); see also Alfatlawi, 2006 UT App 511, ¶ 26 , 153 P.3d 804 . ¶4 Sanchez pleaded no contest to amended charges in three cases. 1 The record reflects that the district court ordered a PSI shortly after the change of plea hearing held on October 3, 2016.

2015The record in this case therefore does not contain "evidence that [Samul] was actually made aware of his right to appeal." See Kabor, 2018 UT App 12, ¶ 14 , 295 P.3d 198 .

2011After reviewing Ferretti's admissions at that hearing, the district court denied Ferretti's motion-and counsel's renewed request for additional time-on the grounds that "Ferretti has not been able to articulate a good faith basis as to why his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made at the time." 114 Under the circumstances, the district court's refusal to allow Ferretti and his counsel additional time to research and prepare a written motion denied Ferretti the "opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way." See McBride, 2010 UT 60, 116 , 242 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2011After reviewing Ferretti's admissions at that hearing, the district court denied Ferretti's motion-and counsel's renewed request for additional time-on the grounds that "Ferretti has not been able to articulate a good faith basis as to why his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made at the time." 114 Under the circumstances, the district court's refusal to allow Ferretti and his counsel additional time to research and prepare a written motion denied Ferretti the "opportunity to be heard in a meaningful way." See McBride, 2010 UT 60, 116 , 242 P.3d 769 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2008Neither Diaz-Are-valo nor his counsel raised the issue of the knowledge element missing from the definition of the murder charge, see id.

2002Doing so merely compounded the error invited by the prosecution in failing to promptly inform the court of M.R.'s initial request to be heard at the change of plea hearing. ¶ 45 As we today hold, M.R. clearly had a constitutional right to speak prior to the acceptance of the change of plea in this case. *767 Under our decision in State v. Ostler, 2001 UT 68, ¶ 10 , 31 P.3d 528 , defendant's plea had not yet been finally accepted at the time the trial court became aware of M.R.'s desire to be heard on the matter.

2002Doing so merely compounded the error invited by the prosecution in failing to promptly inform the court of M.R.'s initial request to be heard at the change of plea hearing. ¶ 45 As we today hold, M.R. clearly had a constitutional right to speak prior to the acceptance of the change of plea in this case. *767 Under our decision in State v. Ostler, 2001 UT 68, ¶ 10 , 31 P.3d 528 , defendant's plea had not yet been finally accepted at the time the trial court became aware of M.R.'s desire to be heard on the matter.