Case Summaries

• Jurisdiction: Utah,United States
• Citation: Vol. 6 No. 8 Pg. 37
• Pages: 37
• Publication year: 1993

Case Summaries Vol. 6 No. 8 Pg. 37 Utah Bar Journal October, 1993

Clark R. Nielsen, J.

GUILTY PLEAS, WITHDRAWAL

Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of a sex crime. On appeal, he challenged his guilty plea and his sentence. Defendant claimed that his guilty plea was void because the trial court failed to determine whether there was a factual basis for the plea, as required by State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309 (Utah 1987). The court agreed with the State that the issue was not properly raised on appeal before the court because the defendant had not moved to withdraw his guilty plea in the district court. A defendant is obliged to seek a trial court's ruling on the issue before raising the question on appeal.

Reviewing defendant's sentencing argument, the Supreme Court reversed the denial of probation and remanded for a new sentencing hearing based upon the standards set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-406.5.

State v. Johnson, 218 Utah Adv. Rep. 3 (July 16, 1993) (J. Stewart)

CONDITIONAL GUILTY PLEA, NONFINAL

Defendant's conditional guilty plea was reversed and vacated because he failed to appeal an issue the disposition of which would effectively bring the prosecution of his case to an end. Defendant appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to sever the counts charged against him. If the appellate court agreed with the defendant, then the prosecution would continue on both counts in separate trials. Therefore, the trial court erred in accepting a conditional guilty plea that purported to preserve defendant's right to appeal the denial of his motion to sever. Because the conditional plea was erroneously entered, the Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the appeal and vacated the plea.

State v. Harris, Utah Ct. App. 920139-CA (August 13, 1993) (J. Bench, with Js. Garff and Jackson)

SENTENCE, FIREARM ENHANCEMENT

The additional five-year enhancement of a sentence for use of a firearm under § 76-3-203(4) cannot be imposed when a defendant is convicted of two offenses but sentenced at the same time for both offenses. The enhancement provision requires that the defendant be sentenced for a felony in which a firearm was used and then later be convicted of another felony where a firearm is used, in order to receive the enhancement.

State v. Ewell, Utah Ct. App. 920379-CA (August 17, 1993) (J. Garff, with J. Jackson, J. Bench dissenting)

WATER LAW, DILIGENCE RIGHTS AND DECREE

The 1937 Weber River Decree does not bar the filing of diligence claims to certain springs and waters in the Weber River drainage system, as there are water sources and water rights within the Weber...