State v. Robbennolt
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ooOoo State of Utah, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Kelly Robbennolt, Defendant and Appellant. PER CURIAM DECISION Case No. 20110436 CA F I L E D (July 27, 2012) 2012 UT App 209 Fourth District, Provo Department, 091401782 The Honorable Darold J. McDade Attorneys: Taylor C. Hartley, American Fork; and William H. Nebeker, Provo, for Appellant Mark L. Shurtleff and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee Before Judges McHugh, Thorne, and Roth. ¶1 Kelly Robbennolt appeals his conviction of forgery after a bench trial. We affirm. ¶2 When reviewing a bench trial for sufficiency of evidence, we must sustain the trial court s judgment unless it is against the clear weight of the evidence, or if the appellate court otherwise reaches a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. State v. Larsen, 2000 UT App 106, ¶ 10, 999 P.2d 1252 (internal quotation marks omitted). When challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, a defendant must marshal all of the evidence in support of the trial court s findings of fact and then demonstrate that the evidence, including all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, is insufficient to support the findings. Id. ¶ 11 (citation omitted). To meet the marshaling burden, Robbennolt was required to present, in comprehensive and fastidious order, all of the evidence presented at trial supporting the findings he now resists. State v. Clark, 2005 UT 75, ¶ 17, 124 P.3d 235. ¶3 Robbennolt fails to meet this burden. Instead, he merely presents some evidence favorable to him that he argues conclusively establishes that he had authority to give a partial deed of trust to the victim. This does not constitute marshaling. See id. Further, in finding Robbennolt guilty of forgery, the trial court necessarily relied on the direct witness testimony and did not give weight to the evidence as Robbennolt presents it. Testimony established that Robbennolt s authority to issue partial deeds of trust was limited to a specific need to correct errors for particular investors. He did not have authority to grant additional interests in the subject property or encumber it further. The evidence supports the trial court s conclusion that Robbennolt lacked the authority to grant the partial deed of trust and that he acted with the purpose to defraud. Accordingly, his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence fails.1 ¶4 Affirmed. ____________________________________ Carolyn B. McHugh, Presiding Judge ____________________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge ____________________________________ Stephen L. Roth, Judge 1 Robbennolt also asserts that the trial court s comment in finding him guilty precluded finding the element of intent. However, the trial court clearly found that Robbennolt had the intent to defraud and the comment singled out by Robbennolt is out of context. 20110436 CA 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
