In Utah the law allows for withdrawing a guilty plea before sentencing but only in very defined circumstances. Recently in State v. Collins, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the issue of a defendant’s desire to withdraw his guilty plea, but the court denied him a withdrawal in that case.

In Collins, the defendant was picked up on a warrant, taken to jail, and a search revealed heroin on his person.  He decided to enter into a plea agreement of one count of possession of a controlled substance, a second degree felony. At the court where he entered his plea, the defendant’s attorney represented to the court that she had gone over the plea agreement with her client and that she believed he was entering into the agreement knowingly and voluntarily. The plea agreement itself is a written statement that the defendant signs which cites the defendant’s rights and that he is waiving those rights. In addition to entering the plea agreement the court asked the defendant various questions including under Rule 11 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure:

• Whether he could read, write, and understand the English language;
• Whether he was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medications;
• Whether he was thinking clearly;
• Whether he suffers any illness that impaired his ability to think clearly;
• Whether he read and understood everything in the plea statement;
• Whether according to the defendant the plea affidavit was true and correct;
• Whether the defendant understood all of the constitutional rights he was waiving as set forth in the plea statement
• Whether he understood the maximum penalties associated with the second degree felony conviction of possession of a controlled substance.

The court also explained to the defendant that although there was a sentence recommendation, the court was not bound by that recommendation. After entering his plea, the defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At a hearing the defendant said he was promised by his attorney that as soon as he entered his plea he would be released on probation. The district court denied his motion to withdraw his plea and he appealed, but only on the issue that his plea was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary, but on that issue he lost as well.

The court noted that “To show that a plea was not knowing and voluntary, a defendant must show either that he did not in fact understand the nature of the constitutional protections that he was waiving by pleading guilty, or that he had such an incomplete understanding of the charges that his plea cannot stand as an intelligent admission of guilt.” The court found that the defendant did not satisfy his burden.

The post State v. Collins: Withdrawing a Guilty Plea appeared first on Ogden Criminal Defense Lawyer.

In an aggravated kidnapping case the court must consider the interests of justice for purposes of sentencing.

Aggravated kidnapping is one of the most serious crimes the state of Utah has legislated and recommends a life without parole (LWOP) sentence absent a finding of mitigating factors or a finding that the interests of justice warrant a lesser sentence. The Utah supreme court addressed such a case recently and reversed the court of appeals’ decision finding that a district court correctly sentenced a defendant to LWOP. The Utah supreme court found that the district court considered only those mitigating factors recognized by the sentencing commission rather than considering generally the “interests of justice” as required by the aggravated kidnapping statute.

LeBeau v. State

In this case the defendant lived with his girlfriend. He was suspecting that she was having an affair. When she didn’t come home one night and refused to tell him where she had been she he became enraged and began to beat her.  He then forced her into his car and started driving toward her alleged lover’s home. A cop started following him. As he entered the neighborhood where his girlfriend’s lover lived, his girlfriend attempted to escape the car. LeBeau collided with the lover’s truck throwing his girlfriend from the car. She sustained significant injuries.

LeBeau was convicted of aggravated kidnapping.  At the sentencing he presented evidence that he believed should have constituted a mitigating factor that would have reduced his sentence from the LWOP. Additionally, the defendant argued that the “interests of justice” should have convinced the court that the sentence should not have been for LWOP.

The Utah supreme court found that the district court erred by not considering the “interest of justice” as required by the aggravated kidnapping statute.  The supreme court then sent the case back down to the district court for further sentencing to determine whether the interests of justice would require a reduction of the LWOP sentence.

The post Life Without Parole for Aggravated Kidnapping appeared first on Ogden Criminal Defense Lawyer.