State v. Mitchell
This text of 2013 UT App 251 (State v. Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Decision
{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.
T2 "[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.
*1055 {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 eriminal justice system." These generalized complaints do not establish that her sentences are so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
4 Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2013 UT App 251, 314 P.3d 1054, 745 Utah Adv. Rep. 50, 2013 WL 5711718, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-mitchell-utahctapp-2013.