State of Utah v. ShamptonAnnotate this Case
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Matthew J. Shampton,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20000784-CA
F I L E D
July 12, 2001 2001 UT App 222 -----
Third District, Salt Lake
The Honorable Homer F. Wilkinson
Denver C. Snuffer, Jr., and Joseph R. Goodman, Sandy, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Joanne C. Slotnik, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Billings.
Defendant appeals his conviction of sexual abuse of a child, a second degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-404.1 (1999), and sexual activity with a minor, a third degree felony, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-401 (1999).
Defendant first argues that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him to concurrent terms of one to fifteen years for the second degree felony, and zero to five years for the third degree felony. Defendant asserts the trial court abused its discretion because it focused on punishing Defendant rather than evaluating Defendant's history, character, or rehabilitative needs; and in not following the recommendations of Adult Probation and Parole (APP) in the presentence investigation report.
"A sentence will not be overturned on appeal unless the trial court has abused its discretion, failed to consider all legally relevant factors, or imposed a sentence that exceeds legally prescribed limits." State v. Nuttall, 861 P.2d 454, 456 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (citing State v. Gibbons, 779 P.2d 1133, 1135 (Utah 1989) (citations omitted)).
It is well established that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in sentencing by emphasizing retribution rather than rehabilitation. See id. at 458; State v. Bishop, 717 P.2d 261, 268 (Utah 1986). Moreover, Defendant fails to cite any legal authority for the proposition that a trial court must evaluate a defendant's history, character, age, or rehabilitative needs when imposing concurrent sentences. The relevant statute is clear that such factors need only be considered when imposing consecutive sentences. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(4) (1999).
Defendant also fails to cite any legal authority for the proposition that a trial court must follow the recommendation of APP in the presentence investigation report. The recommendation of APP is simply that, a recommendation that is not binding on the trial court. It is clear from the record that the trial court considered all the evidence, including the presentence investigation report, and sentenced Defendant within the limits prescribed by law. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-3-203(2)(b) & (c) (1999). We therefore conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Defendant.
Defendant next argues that the trial court failed to make adequate findings when it imposed Defendant's sentence. However, Defendant fails to cite any legal authority for the proposition that a trial court must make specific findings to justify a sentence. Therefore, we decline to address Defendant's argument. See State v. Wareham, 772 P.2d 960, 966 (Utah 1989).
Accordingly, we affirm.
Judith M. Billings, Judge -----
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
Russell W. Bench, Judge