State v. Garcia

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Garcia

504 P.2d 1015, 29 Utah 2d 52, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1026

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 22, 1972

Docket12994

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 504 P.2d 1015 (State v. Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Garcia, 504 P.2d 1015, 29 Utah 2d 52, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1026 (Utah 1972).

Pincite

Opinions

TUCKETT, Justice.

This is an appeal by the State from an order of the district court arresting judgment and discharging the defendant.

The defendant and one Randall Robert Houle were charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree in the city court of Ogden City. The defendant was bound over and held to answer the charge in the district court where he was thereafter tried and found guilty. The code-fendant Houle, at the election of the prosecutor, was permitted to plead guilty to the crime of a trespass, a misdemeanor, and he was sentenced to serve a few days in jail. At the time the defendant here was brought before the court for pronouncement of judgment the court arrested judgment and discharged the defendant. . It would appear that the court was of the opinion that the defendant and the co-defendant were similarly situated and that the prosecutor, by electing to proceed against the defendant as a felon and in treating the codefendant as a misdemean-ant, denied the defendant equal protection of the laws.

It is not a function of the courts to review the exercise of executive discretion, and we cannot say that it was error for the prosecutor to treat the defendants in a different manner, and we cannot.review the prosecutor’s decision to proceed against one defendant under an information charging him with a felony and reducing the charge against the codefendant to a misdemeanor.¹ However, the trial court in a criminal prosecution is granted wide discretion in dealing with the defendant after he is convicted, and the statutes grant [54]*54to the trial court wide powers in dealing with a defendant other than pronouncing the sentence provided by law.² The court may in its discretion place a defendant on probation on whatever conditions it deems proper.

The action of the court below in arresting judgment was within the court’s discretion, and there being no showing of an abuse of that discretion the court’s action is not reviewable here. While the State requests this court to reverse the judgment of the court below and reinstate the judgment of guilty in this case, we are of the opinion that the matter is now moot and it is beyond the power of this court to direct that the case proceed further.³

The decision of the court below is affirmed.

CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TUCKETT, Justice.

This is an appeal by the State from an order of the district court arresting judgment and discharging the defendant.

The defendant and one Randall Robert Houle were charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree in the city court of Ogden City. The defendant was bound over and held to answer the charge in the district court where he was thereafter tried and found guilty. The code-fendant Houle, at the election of the prosecutor, was permitted to plead guilty to the crime of a trespass, a misdemeanor, and he was sentenced to serve a few days in jail. At the time the defendant here was brought before the court for pronouncement of judgment the court arrested judgment and discharged the defendant. . It would appear that the court was of the opinion that the defendant and the co-defendant were similarly situated and that the prosecutor, by electing to proceed against the defendant as a felon and in treating the codefendant as a misdemean-ant, denied the defendant equal protection of the laws.

It is not a function of the courts to review the exercise of executive discretion, and we cannot say that it was error for the prosecutor to treat the defendants in a different manner, and we cannot.review the prosecutor’s decision to proceed against one defendant under an information charging him with a felony and reducing the charge against the codefendant to a misdemeanor.¹ However, the trial court in a criminal prosecution is granted wide discretion in dealing with the defendant after he is convicted, and the statutes grant [54]*54to the trial court wide powers in dealing with a defendant other than pronouncing the sentence provided by law.² The court may in its discretion place a defendant on probation on whatever conditions it deems proper.

The action of the court below in arresting judgment was within the court’s discretion, and there being no showing of an abuse of that discretion the court’s action is not reviewable here. While the State requests this court to reverse the judgment of the court below and reinstate the judgment of guilty in this case, we are of the opinion that the matter is now moot and it is beyond the power of this court to direct that the case proceed further.³

The decision of the court below is affirmed.

CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

504 P.2d 1015, 29 Utah 2d 52, 1972 Utah LEXIS 1026, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-garcia-utah-1972.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack