Opinion ID: 155993
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inclusion of Mischievous Conduct Conviction in Criminal History

Text: 47 Mr. Florez next argues that the court should not have included his prior state misdemeanor conviction for mischievous conduct for purposes of calculating his criminal history. Generally, misdemeanor offenses are included in a defendant's criminal history. See USSG § 4A1.2(c). However, a misdemeanor may be excluded from the criminal history calculation if it is similar to an offense listed in § 4A1.2(c)(1) unless: (1) the defendant was sentenced to the requisite term of probation or imprisonment, or (2) the prior offense was similar to an instant offense. United States v. Hooks, 65 F.3d 850, 855 (10th Cir.1995); see USSG § 4A1.2(c)(1). Mr. Florez claims that his mischievous conduct conviction is similar to disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace, which are listed in § 4A1.2(c)(1), and that his minimal sentence for that offense excludes it from his criminal history. 48 The Utah criminal code contains no offense for mischievous conduct but does include the offenses of criminal mischief and disorderly conduct. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 76-6-106, 76-9-102. Criminal mischief is an offense that is generally more serious than disorderly conduct under Utah law. A criminal mischief conviction requires a showing of intentional, willful, or reckless damage or potential damage to property and ranges from a third degree felony to a class C misdemeanor. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-106. Disorderly conduct, on the other hand, deals with public inconvenience or annoyance, does not involve damage or potential damage to property, and is either a class C misdemeanor or an infraction. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-9-102. Mr. Florez argues, for the first time on appeal, that because the PSR does not state to what specific conduct he pled guilty in his mischievous conduct conviction, there is a possibility the offense really fits better as disorderly conduct and might therefore be excluded from the criminal history calculation. Although the PSR did not contain specific facts about Mr. Florez's conduct underlying the conviction, we note that defendant paid $200 restitution to the victim, in addition to a $250 fine, a suspended jail term, and six months' court probation. We doubt that restitution would be required for disorderly conduct, but it could certainly be required for damage to property under the criminal mischief statute. We therefore conclude that Mr. Florez's prior conviction for mischievous conduct was properly included in calculating criminal history. 49