State v. Mitchell
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2013 UT App 251 _________________________________________________________ THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF UTAH, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRITTANY GAYLE MITCHELL, Defendant and Appellant Per Curiam Decision No. 20120849 CA Filed October 18, 2013 Third District Court, Salt Lake Department The Honorable Deno G. Himonas No. 121908378 Herschel Bullen, Attorney for Appellant John E. Swallow and Jeanne B. Inouye, Attorneys for Appellee Before JUDGES JAMES Z. DAVIS, CAROLYN B. MCHUGH, AND J. FREDERIC VOROS JR. PER CURIAM: ¶1 Brittany Gayle Mitchell appeals her sentences after she pleaded guilty to attempted possession or use of a controlled substance, a class A misdemeanor, and use or possession of drug paraphernalia, a class B misdemeanor. We affirm. ¶2 [A] trial court s sentencing decision will not be overturned unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed to consider all of the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion. State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 59, 191 P.3d 17. State v. Mitchell ¶3 Mitchell does not assert that her sentences exceed statutory or constitutional limits, or that the district court failed to consider all of the legally relevant factors. Instead, Mitchell asserts, without further analysis or argument, that her sentences are excessive in light of [her] background and the crime committed, as well as the interests of society which underlie the criminal justice system. These generalized complaints do not establish that her sentences are so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion. ¶4 Affirmed. 20120849 CA 2 2013 UT App 251
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.
