State of Utah v. Coria

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Enrique Coria,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990374-CA

F I L E D
March 9, 2000
  2000 UT App 64 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Michael Lyon

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

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Garff.(1)

BENCH, Judge:

Appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive rather than concurrent sentences, arguing the trial court failed to consider all the legally relevant factors. We disagree.

We are satisfied, based on our review of the record, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences because it considered "the gravity and circumstances of the offenses and [appellant's] history, character, and rehabilitative needs." Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(4) (1999). The trial court received a presentence report and considered its contents.(2) The trial court also considered mitigating factors from Dr. Beasley's report regarding appellant's developmental deficiencies and inability to accurately see some of the consequences of his acts. Additionally, at sentencing, appellant's counsel argued in favor of concurrent sentences, emphasizing appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

After considering all the legally relevant factors, the trial court stated:

Having regard, therefore, for [appellant's] potential to be rehabilitated, having regard for the severity of all of these aggravating circumstances, the Court sentences the defendant to serve a prison term of one to fifteen years and I will order that that be served consecutively. It strikes the court that given the nature of this offense[,] that does not prove to the Court to be oppressive or unreasonable.

Although the statute favors concurrent sentences, see State v. Galli, 967 P.2d 930, 938 (Utah 1998), it was within the trial court's discretion to impose consecutive sentences. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(1) (1999). Given the serious nature of appellant's crime, we cannot find that "'no reasonable [person] would take the view adopted by the trial court.'" State v. Schweitzer, 943 P.2d 649, 651 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (citation omitted; alteration in original). We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Accordingly, we affirm.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Regnal W. Garff, Senior Judge

1. Senior Judge Regnal W. Garff sitting by special appointment pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-4(2) (1996); Utah Code Jud. Admin. R3-108(4).

2. Appellant has not made the presentence report part of the record on appeal, "so there is nothing before this Court to determine whether the trial court's use of that report amounted to an abuse of discretion. Absent a record, this Court presumes regularity in the proceedings below." State v. Eloge, 762 P.2d 1, 2 (Utah 1988); see also State v. Nuttall, 861 P.2d 454, 458 n.12 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (stating review of sentencing issue is limited when presentence report not made part of record on appeal).