State v. Guillen , 807 Utah Adv. Rep. 10 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                          
    2016 UT App 39
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Appellee,
    v.
    MARIO L. GUILLEN,
    Appellant.
    Per Curiam Decision
    No. 20150462-CA
    Filed February 25, 2016
    Second District Court, Ogden Department
    The Honorable W. Brent West
    No. 141901625
    Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant
    Sean D. Reyes and Lindsey L. Wheeler, Attorneys
    for Appellee
    Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and
    JUSTICE JOHN A. PEARCE. 1
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1     Mario L. Guillen appeals from his sentences for attempted
    theft and giving false personal information to a peace officer.
    Guillen argues that the district court plainly erred by
    considering Guillen’s actions during sentencing in its sentencing
    decision. Alternatively, he argues that his trial counsel’s
    performance was deficient due to counsel’s failure to address the
    issue with the court. We conclude that the district court did not
    consider any inaccurate or unreliable information in making its
    sentencing decision.
    1. Justice John A. Pearce sat by special assignment as authorized
    by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 3-108(3).
    State v. Guillen
    ¶2     We review the sentencing decision of the district court,
    including the decision to grant or deny probation, for an abuse
    of discretion. See State v. Valdovinos, 
    2003 UT App 432
    , ¶ 14, 
    82 P.3d 1167
    . “An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to
    consider all legally relevant factors or if the sentence imposed is
    clearly excessive.” 
    Id.
     (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted). Furthermore, “[a]n appellate court may only find
    abuse if it can be said that no reasonable [person] would take the
    view adopted by the trial court.” 
    Id.
     (second alteration in
    original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
    However, due process requires “that a sentencing judge act on
    reasonably reliable and relevant information in exercising
    discretion in fixing a sentence.” State v. Howell, 
    707 P.2d 115
    , 118
    (Utah 1985).
    ¶3      Guillen argues that in making its sentencing decision, the
    district court improperly relied on Guillen’s refusal to look at the
    victim while she was speaking at his sentencing hearing.
    Specifically, after the victim addressed the court, the prosecutor
    stated: “I find it interesting that the defendant doesn’t pay
    attention to the victim during [her] speech.” The district court
    responded that Guillen’s demeanor “was not lost on me.”
    However, immediately thereafter, Guillen informed the court
    that his attorney told him not to look at the victim. The court
    acknowledged the statement by responding, “Oh. Okay. All
    right. Anything else anybody wants to say?” Guillen argues that
    this exchange demonstrates that the district court relied on
    inaccurate and unreliable information in making its sentencing
    decision. We disagree.
    ¶4     The exchange demonstrates that Guillen was able to
    correct any of the district court’s potential misconceptions
    caused by Guillen’s failure to look at the victim while she was
    speaking at sentencing. The district court then accepted this
    explanation. Thus, the record does not demonstrate that the
    20150462-CA                     2                 
    2016 UT App 39
    State v. Guillen
    district court relied on the inaccurate or unreliable information
    claimed by Guillen.
    ¶5     We note that the presentence investigation report (PSI)
    recommended two concurrent jail sentences of 365 days. This
    recommendation was based on Guillen’s extensive criminal
    history; his negative parole history, including absconding from
    supervision twice; and his pending criminal charges in
    Colorado. In rendering its decision the district court expressly
    indicated that it believed that the PSI’s recommendation was
    correct and that it was adopting that recommendation. Guillen
    points to nothing in the record that would demonstrate that
    some lesser sentence was warranted. Ultimately, Guillen cannot
    show that no reasonable person “would take the view adopted
    by the trial court.” See Valdovinos, 
    2003 UT App 432
    , ¶ 14.
    ¶6    Affirmed.
    20150462-CA                    3                
    2016 UT App 39
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20150462-CA

Citation Numbers: 2016 UT App 39, 368 P.3d 475, 807 Utah Adv. Rep. 10, 2016 Utah App. LEXIS 40, 2016 WL 761869

Judges: Orme, Voros, Pearce

Filed Date: 2/25/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024