State v. Bradley , 2014 Utah App. LEXIS 298 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                      
    2014 UT App 295
    _________________________________________________________
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Plaintiff and Appellee,
    v.
    CLARENCE EARL BRADLEY,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    Memorandum Decision
    No. 20130921-CA
    Filed December 18, 2014
    Second District Court, Ogden Department
    The Honorable Michael D. DiReda
    No. 121902783
    Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant
    Sean D. Reyes and Daniel W. Boyer, Attorneys
    for Appellee
    JUDGE J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. authored this Memorandum
    Decision, in which JUDGES MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN and
    KATE A. TOOMEY concurred.
    VOROS, Judge:
    ¶1    Appellant Clarence Earl Bradley challenges his prison
    sentence of one to fifteen years for possession of a controlled
    substance with intent to distribute. He claims that his sentence
    was excessive in that it “failed to account for the substandard
    medical care [he] would receive in prison as well as his
    advanced age.” We affirm.
    ¶2    At sentencing, the judge asked an officer representing
    Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) to address “what will
    happen at the prison in terms of *Bradley’s+ care and the burden
    State v. Bradley
    that will be placed upon the Department of Corrections to make
    sure that . . . his needs are being looked after.” The AP&P officer
    then described the prison’s medical assessment at intake,
    asserted that some prisoners with severe medical conditions “are
    placed right into medical as part of their housing,” described the
    prison’s medical program as “incredible,” and said that prison
    officials “contract with the University of Utah” and “frequently
    take people up there to have their care and testing things done.”
    Neither Bradley’s counsel nor anyone else at sentencing
    questioned or contradicted this assessment.
    ¶3     But on appeal, Bradley challenges the prison
    representative’s assertions. He argues that the standard of
    medical care in American prisons falls well below that of the
    nonincarcerated population. He asserts that effective pain
    management is often withheld, that prison medical practitioners
    and facilities are substandard, and that prison life can be
    especially degrading and difficult for the elderly who are sick.
    He supports these criticisms with citations to scholarly literature
    assessing prison medical care in the United States.1 But he cites
    no record facts or any information specific to Utah.
    ¶4      Bradley’s claim fails because he did not preserve it in the
    trial court. To preserve an issue for appeal, a party must present
    it “to the trial court in such a way that the trial court has an
    opportunity to rule on that issue.” 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc.,
    
    2004 UT 72
    , ¶ 51, 
    99 P.3d 801
     (citation and internal quotation
    marks omitted). Bradley maintains that his counsel preserved
    the claim by seeking probation “given Mr. Bradley’s current
    1. See, e.g., Michael S. Vaughn & Linda G. Smith, Practicing Penal
    Harm Medicine in the United States: Prisoners’ Voices from Jail, 16
    Just. Q. 175, 217–19 (1999); Molly Fairchild James, Note, The
    Sentencing of Elderly Criminals, 29 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1025, 1026–
    27 (1991).
    20130921-CA                      2                
    2014 UT App 295
    State v. Bradley
    situation, especially his medical and health situation.” But an
    assertion that Bradley needed medical attention would not have
    brought to the trial court’s attention Bradley’s appellate claim—
    that the AP&P officer inaccurately described the prison’s
    medical services. On the contrary, the judge stated, “Well, if I
    thought for a minute that I was imposing a sentence that would
    leave Mr. Bradley without any sort of medical assistance or
    services, I certainly wouldn’t do that.” No one at sentencing
    gave the judge reason to think otherwise.
    ¶5      But even if Bradley had preserved his claim on appeal, the
    trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing him to
    prison. An appellate court will reverse a trial court’s sentencing
    decision only when it is “clear that the actions of the *trial+ judge
    were so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
    State v. Killpack, 
    2008 UT 49
    , ¶ 18, 
    191 P.3d 17
     (alteration in
    original) (emphasis, citation, and internal quotation marks
    omitted). Under this standard we reverse only if “no reasonable
    [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.” State v.
    Maestas, 
    2012 UT 46
    , ¶ 36, 
    299 P.3d 892
     (alteration in original)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    ¶6     Bradley’s extensive criminal history spans nearly six
    decades, in the course of which he failed supervised release at
    least twice—the very sentencing option he seeks here.
    Furthermore, the AP&P officer’s uncontroverted testimony
    asserted that the Department of Corrections would conduct a
    medical assessment of Bradley upon intake, that he would
    receive his prescribed medications, and that he would be housed
    in accordance with his medical condition. Indeed, even if
    Bradley had brought to the sentencing court’s attention the
    scholarly literature he brings to ours, it would not alter our
    conclusion; none of the national studies Bradley cites on appeal
    speak directly to the current state of medical care in Utah
    prisons. Given the facts available to the sentencing court, we
    cannot conclude that “no reasonable *person+ would take the
    20130921-CA                      3                
    2014 UT App 295
    State v. Bradley
    view adopted by the trial court.” See 
    id.
     (alteration in original)
    (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    ¶7    The trial court’s order is accordingly affirmed.
    20130921-CA                     4               
    2014 UT App 295
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20130921-CA

Citation Numbers: 2014 UT App 295, 341 P.3d 946, 2014 Utah App. LEXIS 298, 2014 WL 7185332

Judges: Voros, Christiansen, Toomey

Filed Date: 12/18/2014

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024