Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of Utah v. Angelo Noe Martinez
Date: 05-23-2013
Case Number: 2013 UT App 128
Judge: Per Curiam
Court: Utah Court of Appeals on appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department
Plaintiff's Attorney: John E. Swallow and Michelle M. Young, Attorneys for Appellee
Defendant's Attorney: Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant
Description:
¶1 Angelo Noe Martinez appeals his sentence after a conviction on a third degree felony charge. We affirm.
¶2 A trial court's sentencing decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 1167. "This includes the decision to grant or deny probation.†Id. "A defendant is not entitled to probation, but rather the trial court is empowered to place the defendant on probation if [the court] thinks that will best serve the ends of justice and is compatible with the public interest.†Id. ¶ 23. An appellate court may find an abuse of discretion only "if it can be said that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.†Id. ¶ 14.
State v. Martinez
¶3 Martinez argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to place him on probation. He contends that because the trial court stated that probation was the appropriate sentence for this particular case, the trial court erred when it sentenced him to prison instead. Martinez overstates the trial court's comments.
¶4 The trial court noted that if the instant case had been the only felony conviction that Martinez had, the trial court would have considered probation in this case. This statement does not entitle Martinez to probation. Rather, it highlights the fact that Martinez already had two other felony convictions. Given that the current case was Martinez's third felony conviction in less than one year, he cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a concurrent prison term rather than probation.
¶5 Martinez argues that his sentence constitutes plain error. To demonstrate plain error, a party must show that an error exists, that the error should have been obvious to the court, and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the case. State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 15, 95 P.3d 276. Because Martinez cannot establish that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a concurrent prison term, he fails to show that an error exists, and thus he cannot demonstrate plain error.
¶2 A trial court's sentencing decision is reviewed for abuse of discretion. State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 1167. "This includes the decision to grant or deny probation.†Id. "A defendant is not entitled to probation, but rather the trial court is empowered to place the defendant on probation if [the court] thinks that will best serve the ends of justice and is compatible with the public interest.†Id. ¶ 23. An appellate court may find an abuse of discretion only "if it can be said that no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.†Id. ¶ 14.
State v. Martinez
¶3 Martinez argues that the trial court plainly erred in failing to place him on probation. He contends that because the trial court stated that probation was the appropriate sentence for this particular case, the trial court erred when it sentenced him to prison instead. Martinez overstates the trial court's comments.
¶4 The trial court noted that if the instant case had been the only felony conviction that Martinez had, the trial court would have considered probation in this case. This statement does not entitle Martinez to probation. Rather, it highlights the fact that Martinez already had two other felony convictions. Given that the current case was Martinez's third felony conviction in less than one year, he cannot show that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a concurrent prison term rather than probation.
¶5 Martinez argues that his sentence constitutes plain error. To demonstrate plain error, a party must show that an error exists, that the error should have been obvious to the court, and that there is a reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the case. State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, ¶ 15, 95 P.3d 276. Because Martinez cannot establish that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to a concurrent prison term, he fails to show that an error exists, and thus he cannot demonstrate plain error.
Outcome:
¶6 Affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of Utah v. Angelo Noe Martinez?
The outcome was: ¶6 Affirmed.
Which court heard State of Utah v. Angelo Noe Martinez?
This case was heard in Utah Court of Appeals on appeal from the Second District, Ogden Department, UT. The presiding judge was Per Curiam.
Who were the attorneys in State of Utah v. Angelo Noe Martinez?
Plaintiff's attorney: John E. Swallow and Michelle M. Young, Attorneys for Appellee. Defendant's attorney: Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant.
When was State of Utah v. Angelo Noe Martinez decided?
This case was decided on May 23, 2013.