State of Utah v. Stephen Rippey

West Jordan, Utah criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child and one count of object reape of a child.



The State charged Rippey with five first-degree felonies- three counts of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and two counts of object rape of a child-for acts that allegedly occurred between January 2005 and July 2008. Rippey pled guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse of a child and one count of object rape of a child. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State dismissed the other charges and amended the information to specify that the charged offenses occurred in December 2007.[2]



Before Rippey entered his plea, the court engaged in a colloquy with him. Rippey told the court that he had reviewed the plea statement with his counsel, and that he understood the rights he was giving up by pleading guilty. He also told the court that he could read and understand English, had not taken drugs or alcohol in the previous forty-eight hours, and was not aware of mental or physical impairments preventing him from understanding the ramifications of his guilty plea. Finally, Rippey told the court that he was "still willing to go forward" with the plea despite the possibility that he could spend the rest of his life in prison.



After this exchange, Rippey signed a plea form certifying that he believed he was "of sound and discerning mind"; "mentally capable of understanding the[] proceedings and the consequences of [the guilty] plea"; and "free of any mental disease, defect, or impairment that would prevent [him] from understanding what [he was] doing or from knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entering [his] plea." The plea form also described the requirements and limitations for withdrawing a guilty plea and explained that defendants could pursue post-sentence plea challenges only under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act (PCRA) and rule 65C of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.



* * *



CRIMINAL LAW. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. The court examined the constitutionality of the Plea Withdrawal Statute, focusing on whether its provisions violate the separation of powers as mandated by the Utah Constitution.



CRIMINAL LAW. PROCEDURAL LAW. The court ruled that the preservation rule and the corresponding waiver in the Plea Withdrawal Statute are unconstitutional as they improperly infringe upon the judiciary's power to adopt procedural rules.



CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. PLEA WITHDRAWAL. The decision outlines that standard rules of preservation apply to plea withdrawals, and separate procedural components of the Plea Withdrawal Statute were deemed unconstitutional, necessitating plea challenges under the standard procedural rules henceforth.

Key Phrases Aggravated sexual abuse. Plea withdrawal statute. Separation of powers. Procedural rules. Postconviction remedies act.

Affirmed