2016 UT App 7

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,

Appellee,

v.

JILL GOFF,

Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20150183-CA

Filed January 14, 2016

Third District Court, Tooele Department

The Honorable Robert W. Adkins

No. 141300057

Jacob L. Linares, Attorney for Appellant

Sean D. Reyes and Daniel W. Boyer, Attorneys

for Appellee

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME and J. FREDERIC VOROS JR., and

JUSTICE JOHN A. PEARCE.1

PER CURIAM:

¶1 Jill Goff appeals her sentence after pleading guilty to child 

abuse homicide. Goff argues that the district court abused its 

discretion in sentencing her to prison.

¶2 We review the sentencing decision of the district court, 

including the decision to grant or deny probation, for abuse of 

discretion. See State v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 

1167. “An abuse of discretion results when the judge fails to 

consider all legally relevant factors, or if the sentence imposed is 

 

1. Justice John A. Pearce sat by special designation, as authorized 

by law. See generally Utah R. Jud. Admin. 3-108(3).
State v. Goff

20150183-CA 2 2016 UT App 7

clearly excessive.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Furthermore, “[a]n appellate court may only find 

abuse if it can be said that no reasonable [person] would take the 

view adopted by the trial court.” Id. (second alteration in 

original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, 

a “defendant is not entitled to probation, but rather the court is 

empowered to place the defendant on probation if it thinks that 

will best serve the ends of justice and is compatible with the 

public interest.” State v. Rhodes, 818 P.2d 1048, 1051 (Utah Ct. 

App. 1991).

¶3 Goff asserts that the district court failed to consider 

certain factors that mitigated against the imposition of prison 

sentence. More particularly, Goff argues that the district court 

failed to consider certain information included in a report 

prepared by her private investigator. The record demonstrates 

that while the district court had initially not reviewed the report 

prepared by Goff’s private investigator, the court took a recess to 

review the report prior to conducting the sentencing hearing. 

Goff then referred to the mitigating factors set forth in the report 

during the course of the hearing. Thus, the district court did in 

fact have the opportunity to review all of the factors Goff wished 

the court to consider. In the end, the district court determined 

that other factors were more significant. Specifically, in making 

its decision, the district court referred to Goff’s failure to seek 

medical assistance for her children after learning they had 

ingested methadone and her failure to provide that information 

to appropriate authorities when doctors were attempting to 

determine the cause of her children’s conditions. Based upon the 

evidence presented to the district court, we cannot say that the 

court abused its discretion in sentencing Goff to prison. See 

Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14.

¶4 Goff also argues that the district court wrongly 

considered information that was not relevant to the crime 

committed. Specifically, Goff asserts that the district court 
State v. Goff

20150183-CA 3 2016 UT App 7

improperly considered a statement in the her presentence 

investigation report (PSI) that indicated that Goff was selling

methadone, thereby casting her as a drug dealer. However, Goff 

failed to preserve this claim. In order for Goff to have preserved 

this issue for appeal she must have entered a timely and specific 

objection—“’specific enough to give the trial court notice of the 

very error’ of which [she] complains.” State v. Garner, 2008 UT 

App 32, ¶ 11, 177 P.3d 637 (citation omitted). While Goff did 

allege that the statement was untrue, she never objected to its 

inclusion in the PSI, nor did she argue that the PSI should be 

altered to remove the reference or otherwise argue that the 

statement should be stricken from the record. Further, Goff fails 

to assert that any exception to the preservation rule applies to 

this case. Accordingly, the claim may not be raised on appeal. 

See id.

¶5 Affirmed.