Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2023 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Alfordgreen2 sentences2019An 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.” These pleas allow courts to impose “a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling expressly to admit his guilt but who, faced with grim alternatives, is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence.” State v. Gardner, 2018 UT App 126 , ¶ 9 n.5, 428 P.3d 58 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 35–36 (1970)); see also State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n 2018From all that appears in the record, the officers in fact did have probable cause to arrest him, given the report from Victim that was corroborated by Gardner's son. 5 An Alford plea, or a plea of no contest or nolo contendere, is "a plea by 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." North Carolina v. Alford , 400 U.S. 25 , 35, 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). | 4 | 8 |
State v. Stillinggreen2 sentences2014Because a defendant “necessarily does not admit to all elements of the charged crimes” when entering an Alford plea, “the record must be sufficient to satisfy the trial court and/or a reviewing court that the State’s case is strong enough to warrant acceptance of the plea when guilt is not admitted by the defendant.” State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 674 (Utah Ct.App.1993). 2011P. 11(b) ("A defendant may plead ... guilty [or] no contest."); State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 671-72 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (explaining that an Alford plea is where a defendant enters a plea without admitting guilt to the offense charged (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 38 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970))). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Ottgreen2 sentences2019An 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.” These pleas allow courts to impose “a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling expressly to admit his guilt but who, faced with grim alternatives, is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence.” State v. Gardner, 2018 UT App 126 , ¶ 9 n.5, 428 P.3d 58 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 35–36 (1970)); see also State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n 2019An 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.” These pleas allow courts to impose “a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling expressly to admit his guilt but who, faced with grim alternatives, is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence.” State v. Gardner, 2018 UT App 126 , ¶ 9 n.5, 428 P.3d 58 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 35–36 (1970)); see also State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n | 2 | 4 |
State v. Archuletagreen2 sentences2019“An 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. Archuleta, 2019 UT App 136 , ¶ 5 n.2, 449 P.3d 223 (quotation simplified). 2019“An 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. Archuleta, 2019 UT App 136 , ¶ 5 n.2, 449 P.3d 223 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Buonocoregreen2 sentences2014Rather, the defendant enters a guilty plea because he recognizes that a prosecutor has enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict.” State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n. 2, 247 P.3d 344 (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 28, 37 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)); see also United States v. Buonocore, 416 F.3d 1124, 1129 (10th Cir.2005) (explaining that an Alford plea is a guilty plea "accompanied by protestations of innocence” and can be accepted by a court "when there is a strong factual basis for the plea,” similar to a plea of nolo contendere (citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 28-29, 38 2014Rather, the defendant enters a guilty plea because he recognizes that a prosecutor has enough evidence to obtain a guilty verdict.” State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n. 2, 247 P.3d 344 (citing North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 28, 37 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)); see also United States v. Buonocore, 416 F.3d 1124, 1129 (10th Cir.2005) (explaining that an Alford plea is a guilty plea "accompanied by protestations of innocence” and can be accepted by a court "when there is a strong factual basis for the plea,” similar to a plea of nolo contendere (citing Alford, 400 U.S. at 28-29, 38 | 1 | 1 |
Alford v. TUDOR HALL AND ASSOCIATES, INC.green2 sentences2004Id. ¶ 22 The Alford standard would ask us to determine whether Albrecht “acknowledged an obligation to secure a policy,” thereby creating a duty to procure insurance. 2004Id. ¶ 22 The Alford standard would ask us to determine whether Albrecht “acknowledged an obligation to secure a policy,” thereby creating a duty to procure insurance. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ostlergreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., State v. Ostler, 2000 UT App 28 ,% 17, 996 P.2d 1065 , aff'd on other grounds, 2001 UT 68 , 31 P.3d 528 ; State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 674-75 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (addressing rule 11 in the context of an Alford plea). 2003See, e.g., State v. Ostler, 2000 UT App 28 ,% 17, 996 P.2d 1065 , aff'd on other grounds, 2001 UT 68 , 31 P.3d 528 ; State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 674-75 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (addressing rule 11 in the context of an Alford plea). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ostlergreen2 sentences2003See, e.g., State v. Ostler, 2000 UT App 28 ,% 17, 996 P.2d 1065 , aff'd on other grounds, 2001 UT 68 , 31 P.3d 528 ; State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 674-75 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (addressing rule 11 in the context of an Alford plea). 2003See, e.g., State v. Ostler, 2000 UT App 28 ,% 17, 996 P.2d 1065 , aff'd on other grounds, 2001 UT 68 , 31 P.3d 528 ; State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 674-75 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (addressing rule 11 in the context of an Alford plea). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hamiltongreen2 sentences1993See also State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91 , 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984) (factual basis for Alford plea can be established by "the record as a whole or any part of it, including a preliminary hearing"). 1993See also State v. Hamilton, 142 Ariz. 91 , 688 P.2d 983, 985 (1984) (factual basis for Alford plea can be established by "the record as a whole or any part of it, including a preliminary hearing"). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Paul Anthony Whitegreen2 sentences1993United States v. White, 724 F.2d 714 (8th Cir.1984). 1993Id. at 716. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Thomas A. Owen and Jacqueline L. Owengreen2 sentences1993In Alford plea cases, however, when a defendant necessarily does not admit to all elements of the charged crimes, the record must be sufficient to satisfy the trial court and/or a reviewing court that the State’s case is strong enough to warrant acceptance of the plea when guilt is not admitted by the defendant. 8 While the record as a whole need not be conclusive or uncontroverted on the question of guilt, “there must be evidence from which a court could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty — a factual basis for the plea.” United States v. Owen, 858 F.2d 1514, 1517 (11th Cir. 1988). 1993In Alford plea cases, however, when a defendant necessarily does not admit to all elements of the charged crimes, the record must be sufficient to satisfy the trial court and/or a reviewing court that the State's case is strong enough to warrant acceptance of the plea when guilt is not admitted by the defendant. [8] While the record as a whole need not be conclusive or uncontroverted on the question of guilt, "there must be evidence from which a court could reasonably find that the defendant was guilty — a factual basis for the plea." United States v. Owen, 858 F.2d 1514, 1517 (11th Cir. 1988) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kinggreen2 sentences1993Id. at 263 (citing State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) ("factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor's recitation of the state's case"). 1993Id. at 263 (citing State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) ("factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor's recitation of the state's case"). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Walton
green
2 sentences2023An “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). | 2 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Edwards
green
1 sentence2023But 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. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Jessop
green
1 sentence2023An Alford plea is a type of guilty plea in which a defendant does not expressly admit his guilt, but nonetheless (continued…) 20210544-CA 13 2023 UT App 140 State v. Jessop against a peace officer. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Gardner
green
2 sentences2019An 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.” These pleas allow courts to impose “a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling expressly to admit his guilt but who, faced with grim alternatives, is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence.” State v. Gardner, 2018 UT App 126 , ¶ 9 n.5, 428 P.3d 58 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 35–36 (1970)); see also State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n 2019An 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.” These pleas allow courts to impose “a prison sentence upon an accused who is unwilling expressly to admit his guilt but who, faced with grim alternatives, is willing to waive his trial and accept the sentence.” State v. Gardner, 2018 UT App 126 , ¶ 9 n.5, 428 P.3d 58 (quoting North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 35–36 (1970)); see also State v. Ott, 2010 UT 1 , ¶ 9 n | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Alzaga
green
2 sentences2018State v. Algaza , 2015 UT App 133 , ¶ 40, 352 P.3d 107 (explaining that when a defendant does not preserve claims before the district court, the defendant "must establish plain error, ineffective assistance of counsel, or exceptional circumstances to warrant [appellate] review" (quotation simplified) ). 2018State v. Algaza , 2015 UT App 133 , ¶ 40, 352 P.3d 107 (explaining that when a defendant does not preserve claims before the district court, the defendant "must establish plain error, ineffective assistance of counsel, or exceptional circumstances to warrant [appellate] review" (quotation simplified) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
1 sentence2018"When a [district] court bases its ultimate conclusions concerning the waiver of [a] defendant's Miranda rights, upon essentially undisputed facts, in particular the transcript of an officer's colloquy with [the] defendant, its conclusions present questions of law which we review under a correction of error standard." State v. Gutierrez , 864 P.2d 894 , 898 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (quotation simplified). ¶12 Gardner also contends the district court exceeded its discretion when it rejected "the plea agreement reached by the parties." Gardner asserts that this issue was preserved below when the cou | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Draper
green
2 sentences1993Id. at 263 (citing State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) (“factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor’s recitation of the state’s case”). 1993Id. at 263 (citing State v. King, 116 Ariz. 353 , 569 P.2d 295, 297 (App.1977) ("factual basis for Alford plea was established by prosecutor's recitation of the state's case"). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.