State of Utah v. Elliott

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Steven Max Elliott,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981616-CA

F I L E D
October 15, 1999

  1999 UT App 297 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable W. Brent West

Attorneys:
Maurice Richards, Ogden, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Keith Scott Wilson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Jackson.

JACKSON, Judge:

Steven Max Elliott (Elliott) challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for absconding, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-309.5(2) (Supp. 1999) ("An offender absconds from supervision when he willfully changes the residence that he reported as his correct address without notifying his parole officer or obtaining permission.").(1) We affirm.

In reviewing the record, we "'"review the evidence and all inferences which may reasonably be drawn from it in the light most favorable to"'" the jury's verdict. State v. Fisher, 972 P.2d 90, 97 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (citations omitted). Further, we will not reverse the verdict unless "'the evidence . . . "is sufficiently inconclusive or inherently improbable that reasonable minds must have entertained a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime of which he [or she] was convicted."'" Id. (citations omitted; alteration in original).

We conclude the jury was presented with ample evidence from which it could have inferred Elliott's guilt. It is undisputed that Elliott was an offender. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-309.5(2) (Supp. 1999). Further, Elliott did not argue that he "notif[ied] his parole officer" that he had moved from the apartment, or that he "obtain[ed] permission" to change his residence. Id.

Finally, the evidence shows that Elliott indeed changed his residence. He told a friend he was leaving and would not be returning, and he took some of his possessions from the apartment. In addition, Elliott was never again seen at the apartment by his parole officer, his employer (who was also his landlord), or his friend, who continued to remodel the apartment in which Elliott had been living. Elliott's father also removed all Elliott's remaining belongings from the apartment. Thus, we conclude the jury was presented with sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably infer that Elliott had changed his residence.

Affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

1. The statute currently in effect does not differ from that in effect at the time of the crime here.