State v. Jenkins , 368 P.3d 873 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                           
    2016 UT App 41
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    STATE OF UTAH,
    Appellee,
    v.
    SAMUEL LORIN JENKINS,
    Appellant.
    Per Curiam Decision
    No. 20141048-CA
    Filed March 3, 2016
    Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
    The Honorable Vernice S. Trease
    No. 111905380
    Alexandra S. McCallum and McCaye Christianson,
    Attorneys for Appellant
    Sean D. Reyes, Deborah L. Bulkeley, and Daniel W.
    Boyer, Attorneys for Appellee
    Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and
    MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1    Samuel Lorin Jenkins appeals the trial court’s order
    revoking and reinstating the terms of his probation. We affirm.
    ¶2     ‚The decision to grant, modify, or revoke probation is in
    the discretion of the trial court.‛ State v. Jameson, 
    800 P.2d 798
    ,
    804 (Utah 1990). ‚Therefore, to reverse the district court’s
    decision in such proceedings, a reviewing court must determine
    ‘that the evidence of a probation violation, viewed in the light
    most favorable to the trial court’s findings, is so deficient that the
    trial court abused its discretion in revoking defendant’s
    probation.’‛ State v. Orr, 
    2005 UT 92
    , ¶9, 
    127 P.3d 1213
    .
    State v. Jenkins
    Unpreserved claims may be reached under the doctrine of plain
    error. See State v. Holgate, 
    2000 UT 74
    , ¶11, 
    10 P.3d 346
    .
    ¶3      Jenkins asserts that it was plain error for the trial court to
    reinstate his twenty-four month probation because its term was
    too harsh given that his most recent probation violation was
    ‚non-violent‛ and came after serving eighteen months of
    probation. In order to demonstrate plain error, a defendant must
    show that the trial court committed an obvious and harmful
    error. See Holgate, 
    2000 UT 74
    , ¶13. However, as a threshold
    matter, ‚review under the plain error doctrine is not available
    when counsel invites the error by affirmatively representing to
    the district court that there is no objection to the proceeding.‛
    State v. Brooks, 
    2012 UT App 34
    , ¶14, 
    271 P.3d 831
    . Jenkins is not
    entitled to plain error review because he invited any alleged
    error by agreeing to the revocation and reinstatement of his
    twenty-four month probation.
    ¶4     Accordingly, the trial court’s order revoking and
    reinstating Jenkins’s probation is affirmed.
    20141048-CA                      2                 
    2016 UT App 41
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20141048-CA

Citation Numbers: 2016 UT App 41, 368 P.3d 873

Filed Date: 3/3/2016

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2023