intermountain-legal-logo-white-newintermountain-legal-logo-white-newintermountain-legal-logo-white-newintermountain-legal-logo-white-new
  • Criminal Defense
    • Drug or Alcohol Related
      • DUI Charges
        • Alcohol Restricted Driver
        • Ignition Interlock Restricted Driver
        • Sobriety Tests
          • Field Sobriety Tests FSTS
          • Breath Tests Blood Tests
        • Automobile Homicide
        • DUI Drug Charges
      • Drug Charges
        • Drug Possession
          • Possession of Marijuana
          • Possession of Oxycontin
          • Possession of Paraphernalia
          • Possession of Methamphetamine
          • Cocaine
          • Ecstacy MDMA
      • DUI and Drunk Driving Defense
      • Medical Marijuana
      • Underage Drinking / Minor in Possession of Alcohol
      • Selling Alcohol to a Minor
    • Violent Crimes
      • Resulting in Death
        • Manslaughter
        • Negligent Homicide
        • Murder Homicide
      • Assault
      • Aggravated Assault
      • Robbery
      • Kidnapping
      • Reckless Endangerment
    • Domestic Violence
      • Utah Domestic Violence Laws
        • Threat Violence
        • Violation of a Protective Order
        • Violation of a no Contact Order
        • Interruption of a Communication Device
        • Domestic Violence in the Presence of a Child in Utah
      • Crimes Involving Children
        • Child Abuse
        • Custodial Interference
      • Domestic Violence Assault
      • Domestic Violence Criminal Mischief
      • Domestic Violence Criminal Trespass
    • Sex Crimes
      • Violent Sex Crimes
        • Sexual Assault
        • Sex Abuse
        • Rape
      • Other Sex Crimes
        • Statutory Rape
        • Prostitution
        • Sexual Solicitation
        • Lewdness
        • Voyeurism
    • Criminal Activity Defense
      • Misdemeanor Defense
        • Potential Harm or Harassment
          • Stalking
          • Electronic Communication Harassment
          • Disorderly Conduct
          • Utah Intoxication Attorney
        • Damage to Property
          • Graffiti Vandalism
          • Utah Criminal Mischief Attorney
          • Utah Criminal Trespass Lawyer
        • Serious Traffic Violations
        • Probation Violations
        • Gambling
      • Weapon Crimes
        • Gun & Weapons Charges
        • Possession of a Weapon or Firearm in an Airport
        • Discharge of a Firearm from a Vehicle
      • Conflicts with Police
        • Filing a False Police Report
        • Interference with Arresting Officer
        • False Information to a Police Officer
      • Juvenile Crimes
        • Utah Juvenile Court System
        • Juvenile Felony Charges
        • Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor
    • Theft and Fraud
      • Theft
        • Retail Theft Shoplifting
        • Embezzlement
        • Burglary
        • Robbery
        • Theft of Services
      • Fraud
        • Identity Theft
        • Check Fraud
        • Credit Card Fraud
        • Investor Fraud
      • White Collar Crimes
    • Record Expungements
      • Reduction of Criminal Convictions
      • Expungement Eligibility
    • Professional License Defense
    • Felony Defense
    • Common Questions
  • Family Law
    • Divorce
      • Contested Divorce
      • Uncontested Divorce
      • Divorce Decree Modification
      • Post Divorce Enforcement
    • Custody
      • Custody & Paternity
      • Custody Modification
    • Child Support Modification
    • Alimony & Spousal Support
    • Visitation & Parent Time
    • Mediation
    • Protective Orders
      • Defending A Protective Order
    • Other Practice Areas
      • Domestic Violence
      • Grandparent Visitation
      • Guardianship
      • Adoption
    • Common Questions
  • Appeals
  • Our Winning Strategy
    • Recent Case Victories
    • Testimonials
    • Accolades
  • Our Attorneys
    • Steve K Burton
    • Justin S Pratt
    • Staci Visser
    • Matthew Bell
    • Mark LaRocco
  • About
    • Find Us on the Web
  • Contact
  • (801) 970-2800
State of Utah v Chanzy Walker
April 22, 2020
State of Utah v David S Nielsen
April 22, 2020
April 22, 2020
Categories
  • Criminal Defense Past Cases
Tags

State Of Utah V. David E. Epling

2011 UT App 229
Filed July 21, 2011

The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive rather than concurrent sentences after the defendant pleaded no contest to three counts of sexual abuse of a child.

Mr. Epling was charged with two counts of sodomy upon a child and four counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child after his stepson revealed in an interview with the Provo Children’s Justice Center that his stepfather had been sexually abusing him over a two year period. Mr. Epling eventually pleaded no contest to three counts of sexual abuse of a child. At the sentencing hearing the court heard arguments from the State and from Mr. Epling’s criminal defense attorneys as well as testimony from the stepson’s uncle and guardian, who testified as to how the abuse had negatively affected the child, and from Mr. Epling’s former employer, who said that in spite of Mr. Epling’s alcohol problems and lack of emotion he would trust him with his own children. The trial court also had access to Mr. Epling’s presentence investigation report (PSI), which contained the results of a polygraph test, and psychosexual evaluation. After considering the evidence, the trial court sentenced Mr. Epling to three consecutive sentences of fifteen years in prison. Through his criminal defense attorneys, Mr. Epling appealed to the Utah Court of Appeals. The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s sentencing decision for the following reasons:

  • The trial court considered all of the statutory factors.
    In deciding whether sentences will run concurrently or consecutively, a trial court is required to “consider the gravity and circumstances of the offense, the number of victims, and the history, character and rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” The trial court’s findings on each of these considerations do not have to be on the record as long as “it would be reasonable to assume that the court actually made such findings.” Such was the case here. The trial court’s reference to Mr. Epling’s involvement with ****ography indicated that the court had read the psychosexual report. The trial court’s reference to the CJC video indicated that the court had considered the gravity and circumstances of the offenses. In regards to number of victims, the stepson indicated in the CJC video that he had seen Mr. Epling sexually abuse his half-brother. With regards to Mr. Epling’s rehabilitation, both the criminal defense attorneys and the prosecution had argued the issue before the court. The court determined that based on Mr. Epling’s refusal to take responsibility for the crimes he was not amenable to treatment. Mr. Epling’s criminal defense attorneys argued on appeal that the trial court had stated that it was unaware whether Mr. Epling had taken a polygraph test, information which was included in the PSI. The court of appeals was unpersuaded by this argument because the results of a polygraph test are not a statutory factor that the trial court must consider.
  • The trial court was not required to consider Mr. Epling’s claims of innocence in determining his sentence.
    Mr. Epling maintained through sentencing that he was innocent. However, Mr. Epling was repeatedly warned and understood that by pleading “no contest” he was admitting that he had committed the crimes with which he was charged. Therefore, the trial court had no obligation to consider whether he was in fact innocent.
  • There was no reason the trial court should not consider Mr. Epling’s involvement with ****ography. Mr. Eplings’s criminal defense attorneys argued that Mr. Epling’s involvement with ****ography could not properly be considered in the court’s determination of his sentence because, as he did not admit to viewing illegal child ****ography, all of his behaviors with regards to ****ography were legal. The court of appeals was unconvinced, holding that there is no law or policy that prevents a trial court from taking into consideration a defendant’s legal activities.
  • The trial court did not exceed its discretion by imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences.
    A trial court exceeds its discretion when it does not consider the statutory factors, imposes a sentence that exceeds the legal limits, or imposes a sentence that is inherently unfair. None of these things happened in this case. Mr. Epling would have liked the court to place more weight on the mitigating evidence presented by his criminal defense lawyers. But “[t]he fact that the trial court assessed the relevant factors differently than [he] would have liked does not mean that it exceeded its discretion.”
Share
0

Related posts

April 22, 2020

State of Utah v David S Nielsen


Read more
April 22, 2020

State of Utah v Chanzy Walker


Read more
April 22, 2020

Trovon Donta Ross v State of Utah


Read more

INTERMOUNTAIN LEGAL

Salt Lake City Office:

2159 S 700 E, Ste 240
Salt Lake City, UT 84106

Phone: 801-970-2800

Fax: 801-951-4901


Murray Office:

491 W 5300 S #117
Murray, UT 84123

Phone: 801-970-2800

Quicklinks:

Criminal Defense & DUI

Family Law & Divorce

Appeals

Personal Injury

Our Winning Strategy

Our Attorneys

Blog

© 2021 Intermountain Legal P.C. All Rights Reserved. Built by Incline Marketing