State of Utah v. BrickeyAnnotate this Case
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000226-CA
F I L E D
August 30, 2001 2001 UT App 254 -----
Fifth District, St. George
The Honorable James L. Shumate
Kenneth L. Combs, St. George, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeffrey T. Colemere, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Bench, Billings, and Thorne.
Defendant appeals from a post-sentencing order revoking his probation. Defendant first argues the trial court failed to determine whether his admissions were voluntary. Although Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation, he asserts the trial court should have inquired into whether his admissions were voluntary because he had "some history" of mental illness.
However, Defendant did not raise this claim before the trial court, therefore it has not been preserved and cannot be raised on appeal. See State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74,¶11, 10 P.3d 346. "[T]he preservation rule applies to every claim . . . unless a defendant can demonstrate that 'exceptional circumstances' exist or 'plain error' occurred." Id. Defendant has made no attempt to demonstrate either exceptional circumstances or plain error.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in not making written findings of fact as to why it revoked his probation pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 77-18-1(12)(e) (1999). The language of section 77-18-1(12) requiring the trial court to make findings of fact contemplates that the defendant has denied violating the terms of his probation and presented evidence at the revocation hearing. Here, Defendant admitted to violating the terms of his probation and did not present any evidence at the revocation hearing. Therefore, the trial court was not required to make written findings of fact.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Judith M. Billings, Judge -----
Russell W. Bench, Judge
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge