Title: State v. Chesnut

State: utah

Issuer: Utah Supreme Court

Document:

11 Utah 2d 142 (1960) 356 P.2d 36 STATE OF UTAH, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, v. SHERRILL Z. CHESNUT, DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT. No. 9258. Supreme Court of Utah. October 20, 1960. Walter L. Budge, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Campbell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant. Henry L. Adams, Salt Lake City, for respondent. CALLISTER, Justice. An appeal by the State from the order of the lower court denying a motion for an order to show cause why the defendant's probation should not be terminated. On January 5, 1960, the defendant entered pleas of guilty to two felony charges. The District Court for Sevier County entered judgment and imposed sentence upon the defendant. The court thereupon, and acting pursuant to Section 77-35-17,[1] U.C.A. 1953, suspended the execution of the sentence and placed the defendant on probation. At that time, the following took place: Subsequently, on February 4, 1960, the district attorney filed with the trial court a motion for an order directed to the defendant why the suspension of the sentence should not be terminated and he be committed to the State Prison. This motion was based upon the affidavit of the district attorney to the effect that the defendant had committed and confessed to the perpetration of other felonies while on probation. The trial court denied this motion and the State appeals. In denying the State's motion, the trial court gave the following as reasons: Section 77-35-17 does not set forth any necessary conditions of probation but leaves the matter entirely with the discretion of the trial judge. While the instant order contained probation terms somewhat at variance with the usual orders, some of which are of questionable propriety, it was within the province of the trial court. The conditions imposed upon the defendant were: (1) that he remain in the strict custody and supervision of his bondsman; (2) that he remain outside Sevier County; (3) that he report to the court on March 14th; and (4) that he "make every effort to make entirely good" and his "conduct * * * be in every way satisfactory." It was implicit from the foregoing that defendant's probation was conditioned upon his good behavior as it must be in every order granting probation. Such good behavior must be conduct conforming to the law.[2] If the defendant did in fact commit crimes while on probation, that violated the terms of his probation and the trial judge, after proper hearing, could terminate the probation. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the State's motion for an order to show cause. Reversed. CROCKETT, C.J., and WADE, HENRIOD and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur. [1] "Upon a plea of guilty or conviction of any crime or offense, if it appears compatible with the public interest, the court having jurisdiction may suspend the imposition or the execution of sentence and may place the defendant on probation for such period of time as the court shall determine. "The court may subsequently increase or decrease the probation period, and may revoke or modify any condition of probation. While on probation the defendant may be required to pay, in one or several sums, any fine imposed at the time of being placed on probation; may be required to make restitution or reparation to the aggrieved party or parties for the actual damages or losses caused by the offense to which the defendant has pleaded guilty or for which conviction was had; and may be required to provide for the support of his wife or others for whose support he may be legally liable * * *" [2] 15 Am.Jur. p. 146.