Opinion ID: 2635589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the shondel doctrine

Text: ¶15 The Shondel doctrine, set fourth in State v. Shondel, 453 P.2d 146 (Utah 1969), and its progeny, states that where two statutes define exactly the same penal offense, a defendant can be sentenced only under the statute requiring the lesser penalty. State v. Bluff, 2002 UT 66, ¶ 33, 52 P.3d 1210. Further, this rule is restricted to circumstances where two statutes contain the same elements and proscribe the exact same conduct. See State v. Gomez, 722 P.2d 747, 749 (Utah 1986). ¶16 Mr. Jeffries contends that if the definition of counterfeit substance is interpreted broadly, he would nevertheless be entitled to proceedings under the Imitation Act because the Shondel doctrine would apply. In light of our interpretation of section 58-37-2(1)(i)(ii), which creates a distinction between the Counterfeit Act and the Imitation Act, there is no overlap between the acts, and we need not address the issue of whether Shondel applies in this case.