Devin Randolph v. State of Utah

Salt Lake City, Utah criminal lawyer represented Defendant charged with first-degree sexual assault.



¶1 The State charged Devin Randolph with four first-degree

felonies connected to an alleged sexual assault. The State filed a

motion for pretrial detention pursuant to Utah Code section 77-20-1,

arguing that there was substantial evidence to support the charges

and clear and convincing evidence that Randolph was a substantial

danger to the community and likely to flee if released on bail. The

State also argued that there were no conditions of pretrial release

that would ensure the public's safety or Randolph's appearance in

court. The district court granted the State's motion.

¶2 Randolph contends that the State failed to meet its burden of

proof under section 77-20-1 and raises four arguments. He first

argues that we should apply a non-deferential de novo standard of

review to a district court's bail determination. Randolph next argues

that the district court misunderstood the meaning of substantial

evidence in the bail context and therefore erred when it concluded

that the State had presented substantial evidence to support the

charges against him. He further argues that the district court erred

when it concluded that the State had introduced clear and

convincing evidence that he was a substantial danger to the public

and likely to flee if released on bail. Randolph last argues that the

district court erred when it concluded that there were no conditions

of pretrial release that would ensure the safety of the public or

Randolph's appearance in court.

¶3 We affirm the district court. To start, we explain that a bail

determination requires a district court to make varied findings and

conclusions that, in turn, require different standards of review. The

question of whether substantial evidence exists to support the charge

is a law-like mixed question of law and fact that we review de novo.

Questions of whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the

defendant is a substantial danger or likely to flee are fact-like mixed

questions to which we grant deference to the district court. Applying

these standards to this case, we conclude that the district court did

not err when it denied Randolph bail.



See: https://www.utcourts.gov/opinions/supopin/State%20v.%20Randolph20220804.pdf

89 We review de novo the district court’s decision that

substantial evidence existed to deny Randolph bail. And we defined

the substantial evidence standard in State v. Kastanis, 848 P.2d 673

(Utah 1993). Although Randolph would like us to abandon that

standard, he has not met his burden of convincing us to depart from

stare decisis principles. We review for clear error the district court’s

conclusion that Randolph was likely to flee Utah if not held on bail,

and that no condition of pretrial release could reasonably ensure the

public’s safety or his appearance in court. We find no error in the

district court’s determinations. We affirm.