State v. Vazquez

2 Citing cases

  1. State v. Sexton

    391 P.3d 297 (Utah Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 1 times

    Sexton contends that the court abused its discretion by not weighing his rehabilitative needs more heavily in the calculus of its sentencing decision. However, none of the literature presented on appeal was presented to the court below. See State v. Do , 2015 UT App. 147, ¶¶ 9–10, 353 P.3d 172 (suggesting that the reviewing court was not required to take notice of the articles presented by the appellant to establish "the likelihood of relapse among drug addicts" where the appellant "did not present these articles to the district court at sentencing"); State v. Vazquez , 2014 UT App. 159, ¶ 5, 330 P.3d 760 (per curiam) (explaining that the appellant had not preserved his argument that the district court did not "fully consider ‘the realities of drug addiction’ " where the appellant did not argue to the district court that "his relapse was not willful, essentially because he is addicted to drugs and relapses are common among addicts, even those who have successfully completed treatment").¶15 Moreover, even assuming the literature is properly before us, Sexton has not shown how the isolated quotes that he provides about the difficulties inherent in recovery from addiction somehow establish that, in light of the realities of the disease, it is per se improper under our sentencing guidelines for a court to impose certain consequences, such as consecutive terms of imprisonment. While we acknowledge the uncontroversial notion that recovery from drug addiction presents a serious challenge and is often punctuated by periods of relapse, that alone does not suggest, much less require, that seriou

  2. State v. Schmidt

    2015 UT App. 96 (Utah Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The court then effectively restarted Defendant's probation by “require[ing] that he serve a hundred days in jail to run concurrent to any time he's presently serving on any other matters” to “close this case out.” See Utah Code Ann. § 77–18–1(12)(e)(ii) (LexisNexis Supp.2005) (“Upon a finding that the defendant violated the conditions of probation, the court may order the probation revoked, modified, continued, or that the entire probation term commence anew.”); see also State v. Anderson, 2009 UT 13, ¶ 15, 203 P.3d 990 ; State v. Vazquez, 2014 UT App 159, ¶ 5, 330 P.3d 760. Defendant did not appeal this ruling.¶ 5 In 2013, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to rule 22(e) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, seeking to set aside the 2005 revocation of the probation resulting from his 1998 conviction and to retroactively terminate that probation at its original expiration date in December 2000. He contested “any allegation that [he] did not ... comply with the original terms of [his] probation.