Court Opinion

ID: 9615401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:36:20.916998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:54:39.826813
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Judge
(concurring):
I concur with the result reached today. However, I write separately to point out that the term “convicted,” as used in Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203(4) (1990), means the establishment of guilt, not the imposition of the judgment and sentence upon a finding of guilt. While I recognize that the word “convicted” is used in either context in various statutes and procedural rules,1 it is apparent that the legislature used the term “convict*1364ed” in the enhancement statute at issue to mean the establishment of guilt.
The legislature chose to require that a person be “sentenced” to a term of imprisonment and then be “convicted" of another felony using a firearm before the enhanced penalty would be imposed. If the legislature had intended the word “convicted” to include the sentencing portion of the criminal procedure, it would have used the term “sentenced” twice rather than “sentenced” and then “convicted.”
Further, several courts, interpreting the word “conviction” in statutes involving enhanced penalties for repeat offenders, use the more common definition of conviction, namely, the establishment of guilt by plea, jury verdict or finding of the court. See People v. Lindsey, 249 Cal.App.2d 6, 57 Cal.Rptr. 190, 193 (1964); Marcum v. State, 239 Ind. 179, 154 N.E.2d 376, 377-78 (1958); State v. Kramer, 235 N.W.2d 114, 115-16 (Iowa 1975); State v. Smith, 650 S.W.2d 640, 641 (Mo.Ct.App.1983); State v. Burk, 101 N.M. 263, 680 P.2d 980 (Ct.App.1984); Padilla v. State, 90 N.M. 664, 666, 568 P.2d 190, 192 (1977); State v. Dassinger, 294 N.W.2d 926, 928 (S.D.1980); State v. Kelly, 28 Wash.App. 705, 582 P.2d 891, 894 (1978). These courts do not include the imposition of the sentence in the definition of “conviction.”
This definition also comports with the purpose of repeat offender enhancement statutes — to discourage continued criminal conduct by imposing a higher criminal penalty for a second similar offense. See Moore v. Missouri, 159 U.S. 673, 677, 16 S.Ct. 179, 181, 40 L.Ed. 301 (1895). Twisting the meaning of the word “conviction” to include sentencing would thwart that purpose in cases such as the one before us. “A statute designed to punish a second offender more severely when he has not learned from the penalty imposed for his prior offense should not be construed to apply before that penalty has had the chance to have the desired effect on the offender.” United States v. Abreu, 962 F.2d 1447, 1452-53 (10th Cir.1992). Accordingly, for purposes of Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203(4), it is logical that we find a defendant “convicted” upon the establishment of guilt, not upon sentencing.

. The word "conviction” is capable of conveying two meanings. First, "conviction” has a common meaning indicating a finding of guilt. See State v. Stewart, 171 P.2d 383, 385 (Utah 1946) (a plea of guilty amounts to a "conviction”); State v. Garcia, 99 N.M. 466, 471, 659 P.2d 918, 923 (Ct.App.1983) (“conviction" refers to a finding of guilt and does not include the imposition of a sentence in the statute at issue); State v. Smith, 67 Or.App. 311, 677 P.2d 715, 716 (1984) (entry of judgment of conviction is not equivalent to a conviction for purposes of this statute); State v. Wimmer, 449 N.W.2d 621, 622 (Wis.Ct.App.1989) (the word "conviction” in common language and sometimes in statutes signifies the finding that a person is guilty); State v. Kelly, 20 Wash.App. 705, 582 P.2d 891, 894 (1978) (a "conviction” is a finding of guilt, as distinguished from the judgment and sentence, for purposes of habitual criminal statute); Sands v. State, 9 Md.App. 71, 262 A.2d 583, 588 (1970) ("conviction” and "sentence” are legally distinct with "conviction” being the determination of guilt and "sentence" being the judgment entered).
Second, the word "conviction” has a more technical meaning referring to the entire criminal procedural process, including the judgment and sentence. See State v. Duncan, 812 P.2d 60, 64 (Utah App.1991) ("it is the final judgment of the court on a guilty verdict or plea that constitutes a conviction for impeachment purposes under Rule 609(a)(1)”); State v. Akana, 68 Haw. 164, 706 P.2d 1300, 1303 (1985) (a more technical definition of "conviction” includes a judgment or sentence rendered pursuant to an ascer*1364tainment of guilt); Department of Transp. v. Edwards, 519 A.2d 1083, 1084 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1983) (“conviction” occurs when there is a finding of guilt and the sentence is imposed); Garcia v. State Bd. of Educ., 102 N.M. 306, 309, 694 P.2d 1371, 1374 (1984) ("conviction" in its technical legal sense means final consummation of prosecution including judgment or sentence rendered pursuant to a verdict, confession, or plea of guilty), cert. denied, 102 N.M. 293, 694 P.2d 1358 (1985); Wimmer, 449 N.W.2d at 622 (the term "conviction” as used in statutes can include a judgment and sentence of the court upon a verdict or confession of guilt).