State v. Chavez

State v. Chavez

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Joseph A. Chavez,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20050177-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 14, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 178

 

-----

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Michael D. Lyon

Attorneys: Joseph A. Chavez, Draper, Appellant Pro Se

Branden B. Miles, Ogden, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Davis, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Joseph A. Chavez appeals the revocation of his probation. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. See Utah R. App. P. 10(e).

    Chavez pleaded guilty to misdemeanor and felony charges in July 2004. He was sentenced in August 2004. His sentence was suspended, however, and the trial court placed Chavez on probation. In open court, the trial court set forth conditions of probation, including one year jail time with work release.

    In September 2004, Chavez was released for work and failed to return to the work release facility. As a result, an affidavit was filed alleging he violated the conditions of parole. A felony charge of escape was also filed. These charges were disposed of at a hearing in January 2005. Chavez admitted the allegations supporting the probation violation. The escape charge was then dismissed. At a separate hearing, Chavez's probation was revoked and his prison sentence was executed. In the interim, Chavez had filed a motion to withdraw his plea to the allegations. He withdrew his motion at the second hearing.

    On appeal, Chavez asserts that because he did not sign a probation agreement, he did not know he was on probation and did not know he violated the conditions of probation. Given the record showing that the trial court placed him on probation at the sentencing hearing; that he was given one year of jail time, although permitted work release; that he walked away from a secure work release facility; and that he admitted to the allegations of violating probation, Chavez's assertion is not credible. He clearly knew that he was on probation and that he was required to return to the work release facility at the appointed time. Additionally, his admission to violating his probation waived any argument that he did not understand probation conditions or terms.

    Furthermore, his argument is raised for the first time on appeal. This court generally will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal absent plain error. See Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017, 1022 (Utah 1996). Chavez has not asserted plain error. Thus, this issue is not properly before this court. In sum, "it plainly appears that no substantial question is presented" for review. Utah R. App. P. 10(e).

    Accordingly, the revocation of Chavez's probation is affirmed.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge