State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403 (Utah 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403 (Utah 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“if an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.”
28 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ostermiller v. Ostermiller (utah, 2010-05-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 18 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ostermiller v. Ostermiller (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Utah · 2010 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Ostermiller v. Ostermiller
Utah Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
if an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lovell
Utah · 2011 · confidence medium
For application of the "substantial compliance" test, see Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985) (holding that where the trial court failed to advise the defendant of his right against compulsory incrimination, the record as a whole demonstrated that he "entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences and of the rights he was waiving, including his right against self-incrimination"); State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) *820 (holding that where defendant alleged that he was not fully advised of the consequences of the plea but failed to provide a t…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Litherland
Utah · 2000 · confidence medium
On appeal, it is the defendant's obligation to provide supporting arguments by citation to the record. "'If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this Court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.'" State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1226 (Utah 1997) (quoting Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Utah 1989) (additional quotations omitted)); see also State v. Wetzel, 868 P.2d 64, 67 (Utah 1993); State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); State v. Robbins, 709 P.2d 771, 773 (Utah 1985); State v. Jones, 657 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Utah 1982). ¶ 12 However, subseq…
examined Cited as authority (rule) State v. Penman (4×) also: Cited "see"
Utah Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Consequently, in the face of "an [in]adequate record on appeal, [we] must assume the regularity of the proceedings below." State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Longshaw
Utah Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
Consequently, in the face of "an [inadequate record on appeal, [we] must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.” State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Layton City v. Longcrier
Utah Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
In the absence of a transcript of the witnesses’ testimony, we cannot determine whether defendant was prejudiced by his wife’s testimony. “ ‘If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, [the reviewing] Court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.’ ” Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Robertson (2×)
Utah · 1997 · confidence medium
Thus, we cannot determine whether the court complied with the requirement of section 77-15-5(5) that "[t]he hearing ... be conducted according to the procedures outlined in Subsections 62A-12-234(9)(b) through (9)(f)." As we stated in Jolivet v. Cook, "`If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this Court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below.'" 784 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986)), cert. denied sub nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wetzel
Utah · 1993 · confidence medium
Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1033 , 110 S.Ct. 751 , 107 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990); State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Blair
Utah · 1993 · confidence medium
Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1149 (Utah 1989) (quoting State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986)), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1033 , 110 S.Ct. 751 , 107 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990); see also Gardner, 844 P.2d at 294 . 7 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Pharris
Utah Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
This “record as a whole” test was later reaffirmed in State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Gentry
Utah Ct. App. · 1990 · confidence medium
State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985); Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jolivet v. Cook
Utah · 1989 · confidence medium
However, this Court has held, “[T]he absence of a finding under [section 77-35-11] is not critical so long as the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that the defendant entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences and of the rights he was waiving.” State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah *1150 1985).
cited Cited "see" A.A.A. v. P.M.
Utah Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) (stating that "in the face of an inadequate record on appeal, [we] must assume the regularity of the proceedings below").
cited Cited "see" In re A.S.A. (A.A.A. v. P.M and V.M.)
Utah Ct. App. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam) (stating that “in the face of an inadequate record on appeal, [we] must assume the regularity of the proceedings below”). 20120186‐CA 4
cited Cited "see" Normandeau v. HANSON EQUIPMENT, INC.
Utah Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Garza (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jolivet v. Cook, 784 P.2d 1148, 1150 (Utah 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1033 , 110 S.Ct. 751 , 107 L.Ed.2d 767 (1990) (court assumes regularity of proceedings below where appellant fails to provide adequate record on appeal) (citing State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); State v. Robbins, 709 P.2d 771, 773 (Utah 1985); State v. Jones, 657 P.2d 1263, 1267 (Utah 1982)).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Hoff
Utah · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Miller, 718 P.2d 403, 405 (Utah 1986); State v. Kay, 717 P.2d 1294, 1299-1302 (Utah 1986); Warner v. Morris, 709 P.2d 309, 310 (Utah 1985); Brooks v. Morris, 709 P.2d 310, 311 (Utah 1985); State v. Vasilacopulos, 756 P.2d 92, 94-95 (Utah Ct.App.1988), cert. denied, 765 P.2d 1278 (Utah 1988).
The STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
Matthew W. MILLER, Defendant and Appellant
20229.
Utah Supreme Court.
May 7, 1986.
718 P.2d 403
George M. Harmond, Jr., Price, for defendant and appellant., David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 24 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: #38,254 of 633,719
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Utah (2)
PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty to one count of aggravated assault.

Defendant was originally charged with two counts of aggravated assault, third degree felonies, in violation of U.C.A., 1953, § 76-5-103. It was alleged that on December 26,1983, he had assaulted with a knife Glenn Hampton and Joseph Lund. At his arraignment in circuit court, defendant waived formal reading of the information and acknowledged receipt of a copy thereof. At preliminary hearing, he waived his right to make a statement and the prosecution presented its evidence, which included testimony of the two victims and introduction of the knife as an exhibit. The circuit court found from the evidence probable cause to believe defendant had committed the crimes charged. He was thereupon bound over to district court to stand trial on the charges specified in the information.

At the arraignment in district court, the prosecution advised the court of the parties’ agreement that if defendant would plead guilty to one count of aggravated assault, the prosecution would dismiss the other count. Defendant thereupon pleaded guilty to Count II of the information. The record indicates that the court accepted the plea of guilty “upon determining that defendant is fully aware of his legal and constitutional rights and ... waived those rights.” On July 31, 1984, after reviewing a presentence report, the court sentenced defendant to a prison term not to exceed five years and ordered him to repay the medical expenses of Joseph Lund.

On August 9, 1984, new counsel entered an appearance and filed a motion for an order to allow defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The motion was accompanied by an affidavit wherein defendant claimed to have entered the plea “believing that the facts of this case supported only a misdemeanor offense.” A hearing was held on the motion, and the court heard the testimony of defendant and arguments of counsel. After taking the matter under advise[*405] ment, by memorandum decision the court denied the motion for withdrawal of plea. This appeal is from that decision.

Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea since he did not understand the nature of the charges against him or the consequences of his plea. In accepting a guilty plea, the court should find “[t]hat the defendant understands the nature and elements of the offense to which he is entering the plea; that upon trial the prosecution would have the burden of proving each of those elements beyond a reasonable doubt; and that the plea is an admission of all those elements.” U.C.A., 1953, § 77-53-11(e)(4). In its memorandum decision denying defendant’s motion, the court acknowledged it did not make a specific finding to this effect at the time the plea was accepted. We have held that the absence of a finding under this section is not critical so long as the record as a whole affirmatively establishes that the defendant entered his plea with full knowledge and understanding of its consequences and of the rights he was waiving. Brooks v. Morris, Utah, 709 P.2d 310 (1985); Warner v. Morris, Utah, 709 P.2d 309 (1985). In the instant case, defendant has not supplied us with a transcript of the arraignment hearing where he entered his guilty plea or with any other evidence that the court failed to fully explain the consequences of the plea. If an appellant fails to provide an adequate record on appeal, this Court must assume the regularity of the proceedings below. State v. Robbins, Utah, 709 P.2d 771 (1985); State v. Jones, Utah, 657 P.2d 1263 (1982).

Defendant also argues he should be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea under State v. Breckenridge, Utah, 688 P.2d 440 (1984), since there is an absence of facts to show that he committed the crime with which he was charged. Without a complete record, this contention is also difficult for us to address. Nevertheless, in denying the withdrawal of plea, the court reviewed the following facts as adduced at the preliminary hearing and as reported in the presentence report: After getting into an argument with a restaurant manager, defendant drew a knife and stated, “I am going to kill you....” As defendant stepped forward, the manager knocked the knife out of defendant’s hand and wrestled him to the floor. In the ensuing scuffle, the manager suffered a broken right hand and bites on his neck and lower jaw. Those facts are sufficient to support a charge of aggravated assault.

Without arguing the point, defendant contends that at the hearing on his motion to withdraw his plea, the trial court wrongfully refused to allow a witness to testify. This witness, William Folkerts, was with defendant on the night of the assault. The court refused to hear Fol-kerts’ testimony on the ground it would have no bearing on defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. We agree.

The judgment of the district court denying the motion to withdraw the plea of guilty is hereby affirmed.