Case Name: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Darnell L. GARCIA, Defendant and Respondent
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1972-12-22
Citations: 29 Utah 2d 52
Docket Number: No. 12994
Parties: STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Darnell L. GARCIA, Defendant and Respondent.
Judges: CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Utah Reports, Second Series
Volume: 29
Pages: 52–55

Head Matter:
504 P.2d 1015
STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Darnell L. GARCIA, Defendant and Respondent.
No. 12994.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Dec. 22, 1972.
Vernon B. Romney, Atty. Gen., David S. Young, William T. Evans, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert Wallace, Ogden, for defendant-respondent.

Opinion:
TUCKETT, Justice.
This is an appeal by the State from an order of the district court arresting judgment and discharging the defendant.
The defendant and one Randall Robert Houle were charged with the crime of burglary in the second degree in the city court of Ogden City. The defendant was bound over and held to answer the charge in the district court where he was thereafter tried and found guilty. The code-fendant Houle, at the election of the prosecutor, was permitted to plead guilty to the crime of a trespass, a misdemeanor, and he was sentenced to serve a few days in jail. At the time the defendant here was brought before the court for pronouncement of judgment the court arrested judgment and discharged the defendant. . It would appear that the court was of the opinion that the defendant and the co-defendant were similarly situated and that the prosecutor, by electing to proceed against the defendant as a felon and in treating the codefendant as a misdemean-ant, denied the defendant equal protection of the laws.
It is not a function of the courts to review the exercise of executive discretion, and we cannot say that it was error for the prosecutor to treat the defendants in a different manner, and we cannot.review the prosecutor's decision to proceed against one defendant under an information charging him with a felony and reducing the charge against the codefendant to a misdemeanor. However, the trial court in a criminal prosecution is granted wide discretion in dealing with the defendant after he is convicted, and the statutes grant to the trial court wide powers in dealing with a defendant other than pronouncing the sentence provided by law. The court may in its discretion place a defendant on probation on whatever conditions it deems proper.
The action of the court below in arresting judgment was within the court's discretion, and there being no showing of an abuse of that discretion the court's action is not reviewable here. While the State requests this court to reverse the judgment of the court below and reinstate the judgment of guilty in this case, we are of the opinion that the matter is now moot and it is beyond the power of this court to direct that the case proceed further.
The decision of the court below is affirmed.
CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD, and CROCKETT, JJ., concur.
. Newman v. United States, 127 U.S.App.D.C. 263, 382 F.2d 479.
. See. 77-35-17'U.C.A.1953.
. State v. Johnson, 100 Utah 316, 114 P.2d 1034.