2013 UT App 242

_________________________________________________________

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF UTAH,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ROBERT YOUNGBLOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

Per Curiam Decision

No. 20120440‐CA

Filed October 10, 2013

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Vernice Trease

No. 111909404

Joanna E. Landau, Attorney for Appellant

John E. Swallow and John J. Nielsen, Attorneys for

Appellee

Before JUDGES GREGORY K. ORME, JAMES Z. DAVIS, and

J. FREDERIC VOROS JR.

PER CURIAM:

¶1 ChristopherRobertYoungbloodappeals the sentence on his

convictions of two counts of automobile homicide, a third degree

felony. This case is before the court on the State’s motion for

summary disposition. We grant the motion and summarily affirm.

¶2 “In determining whether state offenses are to run

concurrently or consecutively, the court shall consider the gravity

and circumstances of the offenses, the number of victims, and the

history, character, and rehabilitative needs ofthe defendant.” Utah

Code Ann. § 76‐3‐401(2) (LexisNexis 2012). “The sentencing

decision of a trial court is reviewed for abuse of discretion.” State
State v. Youngblood

v. Valdovinos, 2003 UT App 432, ¶ 14, 82 P.3d 1167. A court abuses

its discretion in sentencing “when it fails to consider all legally

relevant factors orif the sentence imposed is clearly excessive.” See

id. ¶ 28 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). On

appeal, a defendant has the burden to show that the trial court did

not properly consider all of the factors in section 76‐3‐401(2). Seeid.

Alternatively, a defendant may demonstrate an abuse of discretion

on appeal if he or she can show “that no reasonable [person] would

take the view adopted by the trial court.” Id. (alternation in

original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

¶3 Youngblood has not demonstrated that the district court

failed to consider all legally relevant factors. His argument is

essentially that the court did not give appropriate weight to his

genuine remorse and his expressed willingness to support the

victims’ children financially and emotionally. However,the record

clearly shows that the district court reviewed all documents in the

record, including the presentence investigation report addressing

the sentencing factors and the letters of supportforYoungblood, as

well as considering aggravating and mitigating factors. The court

also heard arguments from the defense and the State, as well as

statements by Youngblood’s family and the family of the victims.

¶4 Based upon its review, the sentencing court found that

consecutive prison terms were merited, specifically noting

Youngblood’s established repeated criminal conduct, the fact that

his actions causedtwodeaths, his prior opportunities toparticipate

in counseling to address substance abuse, and his three

unsuccessful, and one successful, experience on probation or

parole. The court rejected any suggestion that the sentencing

decision was a mechanical response to the offense, while noting

thatthe Utah Legislature had determined that a prison term was an

appropriate potential sentence for this criminal conduct. Based

upon its review of the totality of the circumstances, the district

court found that consecutive prison sentences were merited.

Accordingly, Youngblood has not demonstrated that the district

court abused its discretion in imposing a legal sentence of two

20120440‐CA 2013 2 UT App 242
State v. Youngblood

consecutive terms not to exceed five years. Neither has

Youngblood demonstrated that the district court imposed a

sentence that was so inherently unfair or excessive under the

circumstances ofthis case that no reasonable person wouldtake the

view adopted by the district court.

¶5 Affirmed.

20120440‐CA 2013 3 UT App 242