# State v. Yates

> Court of Appeals of Utah · May 23, 1996 · 291 Utah Adv. Rep. 4

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557522

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Lewis Ricky YATES, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Utah
- **Decided:** May 23, 1996
- **Citations:** 291 Utah Adv. Rep. 4; 918 P.2d 136; 1996 Utah App. LEXIS 55; 1996 WL 272994
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Bench
- **Judges:** Davis, Bench and Jackson
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557522

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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
- stating when defendant failed to appear at sentencing hearing, trial court issued bench warrant and continued sentencing

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9557522. Public record. Not legal advice.