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 1998–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lebeaugreen2 sentences2020He also argued that the court abused its discretion when it failed to properly conduct the interests of justice analysis required by LeBeau v. State, 2014 UT 39 , 337 P.3d 254 . 2020He also argued that the court abused its discretion when it failed to properly conduct the interests of justice analysis required by LeBeau v. State, 2014 UT 39 , 337 P.3d 254 . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Woodlandgreen1 sentence2020He argues this was an abuse of discretion. ¶96 “We traditionally afford the trial court wide latitude and discretion in sentencing.” State v. Woodland, 945 P.2d 665, 671 (Utah 1997). | 1 | 1 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2018Casper appeals. ¶9 On appeal, Casper contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to "present evidence of proportionality-an essential prong of the interests-of-justice framework articulated under LeBeau ... [at] the sentencing hearing." 2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Craft , 2017 UT App 87 , ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 889 (qu 2018Casper appeals. ¶9 On appeal, Casper contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to "present evidence of proportionality-an essential prong of the interests-of-justice framework articulated under LeBeau ... [at] the sentencing hearing." 2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Craft , 2017 UT App 87 , ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 889 (qu | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guardgreen2 sentences2016Additionally, it requires that sentencing judges appropriately weigh a defendant's potential for rehabilitation." Id. 137 . {34 Although the supreme court decided LeBeau one year after Jaramillo was sentenced and filed this appeal, the court has recently recognized "a rule of retroactive application to all cases pending on direct review of new rules of criminal procedure announced in judicial decisions." State v. Guard, 2015 UT 96, ¶¶ 31, 67 , 371 P.3d 1 . 2016Additionally, it requires that sentencing judges appropriately weigh a defendant's potential for rehabilitation." Id. 137 . {34 Although the supreme court decided LeBeau one year after Jaramillo was sentenced and filed this appeal, the court has recently recognized "a rule of retroactive application to all cases pending on direct review of new rules of criminal procedure announced in judicial decisions." State v. Guard, 2015 UT 96, ¶¶ 31, 67 , 371 P.3d 1 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Strunkgreen1 sentence2014State v. Strunk, 846 P.2d 1297, 1300-02 (Utah 1993). | 1 | 1 |
Harry v. Schwendimangreen1 sentence2008See Harry v. Schwendiman, 740 P.2d 1344, 1346 (Utah Ct.App.1987) ("We do not reach constitutional issues raised by appellant as this case is reversed on other grounds and remanded for possible further evidentiary hearing."). | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2007See also Adams v. State, 2005 UT 62 , 123 P.3d 400 , and authority cited therein. 2007See also Adams v. State, 2005 UT 62 , 123 P.3d 400 , and authority cited therein. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stillinggreen1 sentence2006As a result, the trial court erred by not fully complying with rule 11 in this matter. ¶ 17 Additionally, because noncompliance with rule 11 infringes on the constitutional rights of the accused, see State v. Stilling, 856 P.2d 666, 671 (Utah Ct.App.1993), we conclude that noncompliance with rule 11 readily falls within the interests-of-justice exception under the PCRA, see Utah Code Ann. § 78 -35a-107(3). | 1 | 1 |
Julian v. Stategreen1 sentence1999Cf. Julian, 966 P.2d at 254 (“[PJroper consideration of meritorious claims raised in a habeas corpus petition will always be in the interests of justice.”) (emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
Wright v. Carvergreen2 sentences1998STANDARD OF REVIEW “In reviewing an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court does not defer to the trial court’s conclusions of law that underlie the dismissal. ‘We review those for correctness.’” Wright v. Carver, 886 P.2d 58, 60 (Utah 1994) (quoting Kelbach v. McCotter, 872 P.2d 1033, 1035 (Utah 1994)). 1998STANDARD OF REVIEW "In reviewing an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court does not defer to the trial court's conclusions of law that underlie the dismissal. `We review those for correctness.'" Wright v. Carver, 886 P.2d 58, 60 (Utah 1994) (quoting Kelbach v. McCotter, 872 P.2d 1033, 1035 (Utah 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Kelbach v. McCottergreen2 sentences1998STANDARD OF REVIEW “In reviewing an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court does not defer to the trial court’s conclusions of law that underlie the dismissal. ‘We review those for correctness.’” Wright v. Carver, 886 P.2d 58, 60 (Utah 1994) (quoting Kelbach v. McCotter, 872 P.2d 1033, 1035 (Utah 1994)). 1998STANDARD OF REVIEW "In reviewing an appeal from the dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, this court does not defer to the trial court's conclusions of law that underlie the dismissal. `We review those for correctness.'" Wright v. Carver, 886 P.2d 58, 60 (Utah 1994) (quoting Kelbach v. McCotter, 872 P.2d 1033, 1035 (Utah 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solem v. Helm
red
2 sentences2016Additionally, it requires that sentencing judges appropriately weigh a defendant's potential for rehabilitation." Id. ¶ 87. 1, Proportionality 189 Proportionality analysis requires the sentencing court to "consider 'the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty." LeBeau v. State, 2014 UT 39, ¶ 42 , 337 P.3d 254 (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-91 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). "[Clourts should consider all relevant facts raised by the parties about the defendan‘é’s crime in relation to the harshness of the penalty." Id. 2016Additionally, it requires that sentencing judges appropriately weigh a defendant's potential for rehabilitation." Id. ¶ 87. 1, Proportionality 189 Proportionality analysis requires the sentencing court to "consider 'the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty." LeBeau v. State, 2014 UT 39, ¶ 42 , 337 P.3d 254 (quoting Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290-91 , 103 S.Ct. 3001 , 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)). "[Clourts should consider all relevant facts raised by the parties about the defendan‘é’s crime in relation to the harshness of the penalty." Id. | 2 | 2014–2016 |
State v. Norton
green
1 sentence2020Norton, 2018 UT App 82, ¶ 67 . ¶28 Finally, Norton argued that the court of appeals should reverse his convictions under the cumulative error doctrine. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Coombs
green
2 sentences2020We would hope that, given the appropriate opportunity, our supreme court will revisit whether LeBeau’s approach should continue.” 2019 UT App 7 , ¶ 22 n.4, 438 P.3d 967 (citation omitted). 2020We would hope that, given the appropriate opportunity, our supreme court will revisit whether LeBeau’s approach should continue.” 2019 UT App 7 , ¶ 22 n.4, 438 P.3d 967 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2019State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶17 While not specifically identifying it as a separate issue on appeal, Coombs also advances the argument that the sentencing court "erred ... when it did not engage in the proportionality analysis" required by LeBeau . 2019State v. Clark , 2004 UT 25 , ¶ 6, 89 P.3d 162 . ¶17 While not specifically identifying it as a separate issue on appeal, Coombs also advances the argument that the sentencing court "erred ... when it did not engage in the proportionality analysis" required by LeBeau . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Litherland
green
2 sentences2018Casper appeals. ¶9 On appeal, Casper contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to "present evidence of proportionality-an essential prong of the interests-of-justice framework articulated under LeBeau ... [at] the sentencing hearing." 2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Craft , 2017 UT App 87 , ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 889 (qu 2018Casper appeals. ¶9 On appeal, Casper contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to "present evidence of proportionality-an essential prong of the interests-of-justice framework articulated under LeBeau ... [at] the sentencing hearing." 2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Craft , 2017 UT App 87 , ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 889 (qu | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Jaramillo
green
2 sentences2018He asks that we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing, "with an order that the court conduct a complete interests-of-justice analysis." ¶68 Generally, "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. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70 , ¶ 32, 372 P.3d 34 (quotation simplified). 2018He asks that we remand the case for a new sentencing hearing, "with an order that the court conduct a complete interests-of-justice analysis." ¶68 Generally, "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. Jaramillo , 2016 UT App 70 , ¶ 32, 372 P.3d 34 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Alvarez
green
2 sentences2018In reviewing the sentence imposed, we will "presume that the sentencing court made all the necessary considerations," State v. Alvarez , 2017 UT App 145 , ¶ 4, 402 P.3d 191 (quotation simplified), unless the appellant successfully demonstrates the presence of circumstances to overcome that presumption, State v. Helms , 2002 UT 12 , ¶ 11, 40 P.3d 626 (noting that situations in which this presumption should not apply "are normally limited to [those] where (1) an ambiguity of facts makes the assumption unreasonable, (2) a statute explicitly provides that written findings must be made, or (3) a pr 2018In reviewing the sentence imposed, we will "presume that the sentencing court made all the necessary considerations," State v. Alvarez , 2017 UT App 145 , ¶ 4, 402 P.3d 191 (quotation simplified), unless the appellant successfully demonstrates the presence of circumstances to overcome that presumption, State v. Helms , 2002 UT 12 , ¶ 11, 40 P.3d 626 (noting that situations in which this presumption should not apply "are normally limited to [those] where (1) an ambiguity of facts makes the assumption unreasonable, (2) a statute explicitly provides that written findings must be made, or (3) a pr | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Craft
green
2 sentences2018Casper appeals. ¶9 On appeal, Casper contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to "present evidence of proportionality-an essential prong of the interests-of-justice framework articulated under LeBeau ... [at] the sentencing hearing." 2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Craft , 2017 UT App 87 , ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 889 (qu 2018Casper appeals. ¶9 On appeal, Casper contends he received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel failed to "present evidence of proportionality-an essential prong of the interests-of-justice framework articulated under LeBeau ... [at] the sentencing hearing." 2 "When a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is raised for the first time on appeal, there is no lower court ruling to review and we must decide whether the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a matter of law." State v. Craft , 2017 UT App 87 , ¶ 15, 397 P.3d 889 (qu | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Helms
green
2 sentences2018In reviewing the sentence imposed, we will "presume that the sentencing court made all the necessary considerations," State v. Alvarez , 2017 UT App 145 , ¶ 4, 402 P.3d 191 (quotation simplified), unless the appellant successfully demonstrates the presence of circumstances to overcome that presumption, State v. Helms , 2002 UT 12 , ¶ 11, 40 P.3d 626 (noting that situations in which this presumption should not apply "are normally limited to [those] where (1) an ambiguity of facts makes the assumption unreasonable, (2) a statute explicitly provides that written findings must be made, or (3) a pr 2018In reviewing the sentence imposed, we will "presume that the sentencing court made all the necessary considerations," State v. Alvarez , 2017 UT App 145 , ¶ 4, 402 P.3d 191 (quotation simplified), unless the appellant successfully demonstrates the presence of circumstances to overcome that presumption, State v. Helms , 2002 UT 12 , ¶ 11, 40 P.3d 626 (noting that situations in which this presumption should not apply "are normally limited to [those] where (1) an ambiguity of facts makes the assumption unreasonable, (2) a statute explicitly provides that written findings must be made, or (3) a pr | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Alfatlawi
green
2 sentences2016Sentencing 1 31 Jaramillo contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it "did not engage in the interests-of-justice analysis required by Utah Code section 76-5-802 [when it sentenced him] for the aggravated kidnapping charge." 3 He argues that the interests-of-justice analysis "must include 'prineiples of proportionality and a recognition of the rehabilitative potential of individual defendants. " *42 (Quoting LeBeau v. State, 2014 UT 39, ¶ 36 , 337 P.3d 254 .) 182 "We afford the trial court wide latitude in sentencing and, generally, will reverse a trial court's sentencing decis 2016Sentencing 1 31 Jaramillo contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it "did not engage in the interests-of-justice analysis required by Utah Code section 76-5-802 [when it sentenced him] for the aggravated kidnapping charge." 3 He argues that the interests-of-justice analysis "must include 'prineiples of proportionality and a recognition of the rehabilitative potential of individual defendants. " *42 (Quoting LeBeau v. State, 2014 UT 39, ¶ 36 , 337 P.3d 254 .) 182 "We afford the trial court wide latitude in sentencing and, generally, will reverse a trial court's sentencing decis | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Killpack
green
2 sentences2016"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 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 138 Under Utah Code section 76-5-8302, aggravated kidnapping not involving serious bodily injury or a prior conviction for a "grievous sexual offense" is a "first degree felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of .. 2016"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 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 138 Under Utah Code section 76-5-8302, aggravated kidnapping not involving serious bodily injury or a prior conviction for a "grievous sexual offense" is a "first degree felony punishable by a term of imprisonment of .. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
438 Main Street v. Easy Heat, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Accordingly, LeBeau applies to this appeal. 4 A. Preservation 135 The State argues that Jaramillo failed to preserve his sentencing claim because counsel's "argument was wholly insufficient to alert the court to the error now claimed on appeal-that it failed to consider proportionality and rehabilitation factors comprising the interests-of-justice analysis." Jaramillo responds that he asked the court to consider "a six to life" sentence and a number of mitigating factors, which he contends preserved his proportionality and rehabilitation arguments. 136 "[In order to preserve an issue for appea 2016Accordingly, LeBeau applies to this appeal. 4 A. Preservation 135 The State argues that Jaramillo failed to preserve his sentencing claim because counsel's "argument was wholly insufficient to alert the court to the error now claimed on appeal-that it failed to consider proportionality and rehabilitation factors comprising the interests-of-justice analysis." Jaramillo responds that he asked the court to consider "a six to life" sentence and a number of mitigating factors, which he contends preserved his proportionality and rehabilitation arguments. 136 "[In order to preserve an issue for appea | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Hill v. Estate of Allred
green
2 sentences2016"Where an argument is not preserved below, we will only review the issue if exceptional cireumstances exist or if the lower court committed plain error." Hill v. Estate of Allred, 2009 UT 28, ¶ 24 , 216 P.3d 929 . 137 Jaramillo preserved this claim at least as well as LeBeau did. 2016"Where an argument is not preserved below, we will only review the issue if exceptional cireumstances exist or if the lower court committed plain error." Hill v. Estate of Allred, 2009 UT 28, ¶ 24 , 216 P.3d 929 . 137 Jaramillo preserved this claim at least as well as LeBeau did. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Manning v. State
red
2 sentences2006Utah Code Ann. §§ 78 -35a-101 to -110 (2002). . 2005 UT 61 , 122 P.3d 628 . . 2006Utah Code Ann. §§ 78 -35a-101 to -110 (2002). . 2005 UT 61 , 122 P.3d 628 . . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.