stating supreme court has determined defendant’s actions that delay sentencing are irrelevant to trial court’s sentence, and that “[d]ilatory as well as diligent defendants are entitled to the benefit of the legislature’s amended punishments and lesser sentences”
How later courts described this case
- stating supreme court has determined defendant’s actions that delay sentencing are irrelevant to trial court’s sentence, and that “[d]ilatory as well as diligent defendants are entitled to the benefit of the legislature’s amended punishments and lesser sentences”
- noting that “in plea agreement cases, the ‘facts’ listed in final, often amended, charging documents follow from an agreed upon penalty” and that pleas “are entered based upon imaginary or fictional sets of facts”
- noting that Utah law clearly entitles a defendant "to a lesser sentence when the legislature reduces the penalty for the crime charged in the interim between commission of the offense and sentencing"
- noting that the “[Utah] supreme court has determined [that the] defendant’s actions that delay sentencing are irrelevant” to receiving the benefits of the amended sanctions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BENCH, Judge
(concurring in result):
I agree that, under controlling supreme court case law, Yates should be resentenced to a class B misdemeanor. See State v. Saxton, 30 Utah 2d 456, 459-60 , 519 P.2d 1340, 1342 (1974); State v. Tapp, 26 Utah 2d 392, 394-95 , 490 P.2d 334, 336 (1971); Belt v. Turner, 25 Utah 2d 230, 232-33 , 479 P.2d 791, 792-93 , aff'd on reh’g, 25 Utah 2d 380, 381-82 , 483 P.2d 425, 426 (1971). I am concerned, however, about sending the wrong message to those who have violated the law.
If Yates had presented himself for sentencing when ordered by the court, he properly would have been sentenced to a class A misdemeanor. Rather than appearing in a timely fashion, however, Yates became a fugitive from justice. It took a bench warrant and a subsequent arrest to get-him to appear *141 for sentencing. Meanwhile, the legislature had amended the relevant statute. It seems to me unwise and shortsighted to reward Yates for his flight from justice by giving him the benefit of the amended statute. Nevertheless, we are bound by existing supreme court ease law. State v. Menzies, 889 P.2d 393 , 399 n. 3 (Utah 1994) (stating vertical stare decisis requires lower court to strictly follow higher court’s prior ruling), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 910 , 130 L.Ed.2d 792 (1995).
I therefore concur only in the result.