Opinion
No. 990927-CA.
Filed October 5, 2000. (Not For Official Publication)
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable J. Dennis Frederick.
Kent R. Hart and Lynn R. Brown, Salt Lake City, for Appellant.
Jan Graham and Karen A. Klucznik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges JACKSON, DAVIS, and ORME.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pedrosa argues the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences. He contends that the lack of written and oral findings on "the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant" shows this abuse of discretion. Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(4) (1999).
[W]hen "factual issues are presented to and must be resolved by the trial court but no findings of fact appear in the record, we `assume that the trier of [the] facts found them in accord with its decision, and we affirm the decision if from the evidence it would be reasonable to find facts to support it.'" . . . "If the ambiguity of the facts makes this assumption unreasonable, . . . we will remand. . . ."
State v. Robertson, 932 P.2d 1219, 1224 (Utah 1997) (citations omitted; second alteration in original); cf. State v. Labrum, 925 P.2d 937, 940 (Utah 1996) (holding failure to make written factual findings was plain error because gang enhancement statute specifically required them).
No such ambiguity exists here. The trial judge was presented with ample, undisputed evidence of "the gravity and circumstances of the offense," as well as "the history, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant." Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(4) (1999). The trial court saw, heard, and acknowledged the mitigating evidence, including Pedrosa's testimony, his counsel's arguments, a letter from Pedrosa, and the presentence investigation report. See State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649, 652 (Utah Ct.App. 1997). Against the backdrop of Pedrosa's previous problem with a similar offense, see State v. Montoya, 929 P.2d 356, 359 (Utah Ct.App. 1996); the failure of prior rehabilitative efforts, see id. at 360; and the duration and abhorrent nature of the abuse, see State v. Strunk, 846 P.2d 1297, 1301 (Utah 1993), the trial court determined that consecutive sentences would be appropriate.
Given our review of the record and our deference to the trial court's superior status as arbiter of witness credibility, see State v. Allen, 839 P.2d 291, 299 (Utah 1992), we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion here. Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: JAMES Z. DAVIS, Judge, and GREGORY K. ORME, Judge.