Court Opinion

ID: 9583809
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:42:17.149144+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:57:21.922815
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I see neither propriety nor any useful purpose in sending this case back for further proceedings. It is plainly evident that Judge Sorensen knew the background of this case and what the recommendation was. He stated that he was acting on the assumption that the recommendation had been presented to Judge Harding. It is both the prerogative and the duty of the district judge to impose what in his judgment is the proper sentence as provided by law. This prerogative should not and indeed cannot properly be eroded or destroyed by agreements between counsel, nor by recommendations of the probation and parole department.1 Judge Sonersen imposed the sentence advisedly. His judgment should be indulged the presumption of correctness and should not be disturbed except for clear and persuasive reasons as to its invalidity.2 I see no such reason here. I would affirm the judgment.

. State v. Plum, 14 Utah 2d 124, 378 P.2d 671.

. See statement for this court by Worthen, D. J., in State v. Burns, 79 Utah 575, 11 P.2d 605; Whetton v. Turner, 28 Utah 2d 47, 497 P.2d 856.