State v. Richmond

Utah Supreme Court

State v. Richmond

666 P.2d 313, 1983 Utah LEXIS 1061

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedJune 1, 1983

DocketNo. 18325

StatusPublished

This text of 666 P.2d 313 (State v. Richmond) 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. Richmond, 666 P.2d 313, 1983 Utah LEXIS 1061 (Utah 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a nonjury conviction for misdemeanor theft in a case where a felony burglary charge only was filed. The trial judge, upon trial of the matter, found there was no burglary, but that the petit theft shown was an included offense, and sentenced the appellant to six months in jail.

The appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was denied. It was based on the contention that the offense of theft is not one included in burglary, being one unnecessary for commission of the latter.

The State’s attorney agreed with appellant’s claim and officially made such commitment a matter of record in this case by confessing error in its brief and by joining the appellant in seeking reversal of the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

This Court is in agreement with the request for reversal.¹ The case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

STEWART, J., dissents.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a nonjury conviction for misdemeanor theft in a case where a felony burglary charge only was filed. The trial judge, upon trial of the matter, found there was no burglary, but that the petit theft shown was an included offense, and sentenced the appellant to six months in jail.

The appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was denied. It was based on the contention that the offense of theft is not one included in burglary, being one unnecessary for commission of the latter.

The State’s attorney agreed with appellant’s claim and officially made such commitment a matter of record in this case by confessing error in its brief and by joining the appellant in seeking reversal of the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

This Court is in agreement with the request for reversal.¹ The case is remanded with instructions to vacate the judgment and sentence of the trial court.

STEWART, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

666 P.2d 313, 1983 Utah LEXIS 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-richmond-utah-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack