Opinion ID: 2506249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: concurrent or consecutive sentencing determinations are to be made at the time of final judgment

Text: ¶ 9 Judge McCleve should have made the determination to run Mr. Yazzie's sentence consecutive to the sentence imposed by Judge Fuchs at the time she entered final judgment. In State v. Anderson , we held that under Utah Code section 76-3-401(1) determinations of concurrent or consecutive sentencing are to be made at the time of final judgment for both simultaneously imposed sentences and sentences currently being served. 2009 UT 13, ¶ 27, 203 P.3d 990. We also held that probation is a sentence and is applicable when determining whether a sentence should run concurrently with or consecutively to `any other sentences the defendant is already serving.' Id. ¶ 21 (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(1)(b) (2008)). [3] ¶ 10 In light of these holdings, it is appropriate that Judge Fuchs did not make any concurrent or consecutive sentencing determinations, as he could not look to later crimes when he executed the previously suspended prison sentences. It was also appropriate that Judge McCleve made the determination to run consecutively the sentence she imposed with the sentence imposed by Judge Fuchs. A problem arose, however, when Judge McCleve made that determination at the probation revocation hearing rather than at the time of final judgment. ¶ 11 Final judgment is the appropriate time to determine concurrent or consecutive sentencing because, at that time, judges have before them all the information they need about the defendant. Section 76-3-401(2) states that [i]n 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 of the defendant. Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-401(2). To help the judge make this determination, a presentence report, which contains the required information, may be ordered. ¶ 12 In this case, Judge McCleve had a presentence report prepared by Adult Probation and Parole. The report discussed Mr. Yazzie's previous crimes and even recommended that Judge McCleve should order probation to run concurrently with the probation ordered by Judge Fuchs but that the prison sentences should run consecutively. When issuing her final judgment, however, Judge McCleve made no mention of the sentence imposed by Judge Fuchs or whether the sentences should be concurrent or consecutive. As a result, the sentence originally imposed by Judge McCleve was illegal because it did not comply with the statutory requirement to determine concurrent or consecutive sentencing at the time of final judgment.