Utah Code » Title 76, Chapter 3 — Punishments; part 76-3-4 — Limitations and Special Provisions on Sentences
Utah Code

Utah Code § 76-3-401 (2026)

Concurrent or consecutive sentences -- Limitations -- Definition

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A court shall determine, if a defendant has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense, whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for the offenses. The court shall state on the record and shall indicate in the order of judgment and commitment:
if the sentences imposed are to run concurrently or consecutively to each other; and
if the sentences before the court are to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentences the defendant is already serving.
In determining whether state offenses are to run concurrently or consecutively, the court shall consider the gravity and circumstances of the offenses, the number of victims, and the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant.
The court shall order that sentences for state offenses run consecutively if the later offense is committed while the defendant is imprisoned or on parole, unless the court finds and states on the record that consecutive sentencing would be inappropriate.
If a written order of commitment does not clearly state whether the sentences are to run consecutively or concurrently, the Board of Pardons and Parole shall request clarification from the court. Upon receipt of the request, the court shall enter a clarified order of commitment stating whether the sentences are to run consecutively or concurrently.
A court may impose consecutive sentences for offenses arising out of a single criminal episode as defined in Section 76-1-401.
If a court imposes consecutive sentences, the aggregate maximum of all sentences imposed may not exceed 30 years imprisonment, except as provided under Subsection (6)(b).
The limitation under Subsection (6)(a) does not apply if:
an offense for which the defendant is sentenced authorizes the death penalty or a maximum sentence of life imprisonment; or
the defendant is convicted of an additional offense based on conduct which occurs after his initial sentence or sentences are imposed.
The limitation in Subsection (6)(a) applies if a defendant:
is sentenced at the same time for more than one offense;
is sentenced at different times for one or more offenses, all of which were committed prior to imposition of the defendant's initial sentence; or
has already been sentenced by a court of this state other than the present sentencing court or by a court of another state or federal jurisdiction, and the conduct giving rise to the present offense did not occur after his initial sentencing by any other court.
When the limitation of Subsection (6)(a) applies, determining the effect of consecutive sentences and the manner in which they shall be served, the Board of Pardons and Parole shall treat the defendant as though he has been committed for a single term that consists of the aggregate of the validly imposed prison terms as follows:
if the aggregate maximum term exceeds the 30-year limitation, the maximum sentence is considered to be 30 years; and
when indeterminate sentences run consecutively, the minimum term, if any, constitutes the aggregate of the validly imposed minimum terms.
When a sentence is imposed or sentences are imposed to run concurrently with the other or with a sentence presently being served, the term that provides the longer remaining imprisonment constitutes the time to be served.
This section may not be construed to restrict the number or length of individual consecutive sentences that may be imposed or to affect the validity of any sentence so imposed, but only to limit the length of sentences actually served under the commitments.
This section may not be construed to limit the authority of a court to impose consecutive sentences in misdemeanor cases.
As used in this section, "imprisoned" means sentenced and committed to a secure correctional facility as defined in Section 64-13-1, the sentence has not been terminated or voided, and the person is not on parole, regardless of where the person is located.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 104 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case: State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009). · cites it 162× “Under the court of appeals' interpretation, a judge sentencing a defendant cannot determine consecutive or concurrent sentencing in relation to a suspended sentence for which the defendant is currently serving probation.”
State v. Gray, 2016 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 52× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), (2). The statute provides that courts may impose consecutive sentences on ‚a defendant [who] has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense‛ if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it.”
State v. Yazzie, 2009 UT 14 (Utah 2009). · cites it 35× “[3] ¶ 10 In light of these holdings, it is appropriate that Judge Fuchs did not make any concurrent or consecutive sentencing determinations, as he could not look to later crimes when he executed the previously suspended prison sentences.”
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 143× “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
State v. Strunk, 846 P.2d 1297 (Utah 1993). · cites it 26× “[2] Sixteen years old at the time of the offenses. [3] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201 (5)(c).”
State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930 (Utah 1998). · cites it 18× “Under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), "[a] court shall determine, if a defendant has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense, whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for the offenses.”
State v. Helms, 40 P.3d 626 (Utah 2002). · cites it 10× “" Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (4) (1999). Helms argues that the trial court abused its discretion by considering only the "gravity and cireum-stances" of the offense and by failing to consider his history.”
State v. Deli, 861 P.2d 431 (Utah 1993). · cites it 38× “First, he argues that he was sentenced in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 because his sentences that do not carry a maximum of life in prison, running consecutively, exceed thirty years.”
Salt Lake City v. Jaramillo, 2007 UT App 32 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 22× “129, § 1, 2002 Utah Laws 419 , 419 (codified as amended at Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003)). ¶22 A layer of uncertainty is added by the majority's cryptic reference to remanding "for any further proceedings that may be necessary.”
State v. Swapp, 808 P.2d 115 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 23× “7 SENTENCING Next, defendant contends the trial court’s imposition of a sentence consecutive to his federal sentences was improper under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (4) and (5)(c), which at the time defendant was sentenced, stated, with our emphasis, as follows: 8 (4) If a court…”
State v. Neilson, 2017 UT App 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 10× “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2) (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Fairchild, 2016 UT App 205 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (l)(6)(b) (Lexis- *701 Nexis 2012).”
Show all 104 citing cases →
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(1) — 12 cases
State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009). “Under the court of appeals' interpretation, a judge sentencing a defendant cannot determine consecutive or concurrent sentencing in relation to a suspended sentence for which the defendant is currently serving probation.”
State v. Yazzie, 2009 UT 14 (Utah 2009). “[3] ¶ 10 In light of these holdings, it is appropriate that Judge Fuchs did not make any concurrent or consecutive sentencing determinations, as he could not look to later crimes when he executed the previously suspended prison sentences.”
State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930 (Utah 1998). “Under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), "[a] court shall determine, if a defendant has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense, whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences for the offenses.”
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
State v. Strunk, 846 P.2d 1297 (Utah 1993). “[2] Sixteen years old at the time of the offenses. [3] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-201 (5)(c).”
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009). “Under the court of appeals' interpretation, a judge sentencing a defendant cannot determine consecutive or concurrent sentencing in relation to a suspended sentence for which the defendant is currently serving probation.”
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009). “Under the court of appeals' interpretation, a judge sentencing a defendant cannot determine consecutive or concurrent sentencing in relation to a suspended sentence for which the defendant is currently serving probation.”
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
State v. Yazzie, 2009 UT 14 (Utah 2009). “[3] ¶ 10 In light of these holdings, it is appropriate that Judge Fuchs did not make any concurrent or consecutive sentencing determinations, as he could not look to later crimes when he executed the previously suspended prison sentences.”
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(10) — 4 cases
State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009). “Under the court of appeals' interpretation, a judge sentencing a defendant cannot determine consecutive or concurrent sentencing in relation to a suspended sentence for which the defendant is currently serving probation.”
State v. Gray, 2016 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), (2). The statute provides that courts may impose consecutive sentences on ‚a defendant [who] has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense‛ if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it.”
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
State v. Norton, 2015 UT App 263 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(11) — 2 cases
State v. Garcia, 2011 UT App 289 (Utah Ct. App. 2011).
Simper v. Bd. of Pardons Parole, 2024 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(2) — 25 cases
State v. Yazzie, 2009 UT 14 (Utah 2009). “[3] ¶ 10 In light of these holdings, it is appropriate that Judge Fuchs did not make any concurrent or consecutive sentencing determinations, as he could not look to later crimes when he executed the previously suspended prison sentences.”
State v. Thorkelson, 2004 UT App 9 (Utah Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Lebeau, 2014 UT 39 (Utah 2014).
State v. Gray, 2016 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), (2). The statute provides that courts may impose consecutive sentences on ‚a defendant [who] has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense‛ if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it.”
State v. Gailey, 2015 UT App 249 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(3) — 5 cases
State v. Neilson, 2017 UT App 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2017). “” Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2) (LexisNexis 2012).”
State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649 (Utah Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Mane, 783 P.2d 61 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).
State v. O'BRIEN, 721 P.2d 896 (Utah 1986).
State v. Jolivet, 712 P.2d 843 (Utah 1986).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(4) — 9 cases
State v. Helms, 40 P.3d 626 (Utah 2002). “" Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (4) (1999). Helms argues that the trial court abused its discretion by considering only the "gravity and cireum-stances" of the offense and by failing to consider his history.”
State v. Deli, 861 P.2d 431 (Utah 1993). “First, he argues that he was sentenced in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 because his sentences that do not carry a maximum of life in prison, running consecutively, exceed thirty years.”
State v. Fedorowicz, 2002 UT 67 (Utah 2002).
State v. Swapp, 808 P.2d 115 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). “7 SENTENCING Next, defendant contends the trial court’s imposition of a sentence consecutive to his federal sentences was improper under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (4) and (5)(c), which at the time defendant was sentenced, stated, with our emphasis, as follows: 8 (4) If a court…”
State v. Perez, 2002 UT App 211 (Utah Ct. App. 2002).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(5) — 2 cases
State v. Jackson, 2010 UT App 328 (Utah Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Jackson, 2010 UT App 136 (Utah Ct. App. 2010).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(6) — 6 cases
State v. Gray, 2016 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), (2). The statute provides that courts may impose consecutive sentences on ‚a defendant [who] has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense‛ if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it.”
State v. Swapp, 808 P.2d 115 (Utah Ct. App. 1991). “7 SENTENCING Next, defendant contends the trial court’s imposition of a sentence consecutive to his federal sentences was improper under Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (4) and (5)(c), which at the time defendant was sentenced, stated, with our emphasis, as follows: 8 (4) If a court…”
State v. Deli, 861 P.2d 431 (Utah 1993). “First, he argues that he was sentenced in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 because his sentences that do not carry a maximum of life in prison, running consecutively, exceed thirty years.”
Todd v. Cox (D. Utah 2024).
Todd v. Haddon (D. Utah 2022).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(6)(a) — 6 cases
State v. Bradshaw, 2004 UT App 298 (Utah Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Gray, 2016 UT App 87 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (1), (2). The statute provides that courts may impose consecutive sentences on ‚a defendant [who] has been adjudged guilty of more than one felony offense‛ if the facts and circumstances of the case warrant it.”
State v. Fairchild, 2016 UT App 205 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (l)(6)(b) (Lexis- *701 Nexis 2012).”
State v. Norton, 2015 UT App 263 (Utah Ct. App. 2015).
Simper v. Bd. of Pardons Parole, 2024 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(6)(b)(i) — 1 case
Todd (D. Utah 2026).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(7)(c) — 1 case
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(8) — 4 cases
State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13 (Utah 2009). “Under the court of appeals' interpretation, a judge sentencing a defendant cannot determine consecutive or concurrent sentencing in relation to a suspended sentence for which the defendant is currently serving probation.”
State v. Deli, 861 P.2d 431 (Utah 1993). “First, he argues that he was sentenced in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 because his sentences that do not carry a maximum of life in prison, running consecutively, exceed thirty years.”
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
Simper v. Bd. of Pardons Parole, 2024 UT App 122 (Utah Ct. App. 2024).
— Utah Code § 76-3-401(9) — 1 case
State v. Anderson, 2007 UT App 68 (Utah Ct. App. 2007). “[1] See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401 (2003). This question is one of statutory interpretation, which we review for correctness.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.