Follow us

State v. Haugen

State v. Haugen, 2020 UT App 130 (Mortensen, J.)

Criminal

Haugen entered a plea in abeyance to one count of felony theft and stipulated to pay $177,380 as part of restitution. But before he paid the restitution in full, he pleaded guilty to two charges in a Colorado case. The district court determined he had violated his plea-in-abeyance agreement and entered a conviction. Haugen appealed, arguing that his agreement did not include a condition that he not commit any further violations. The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:

  • The district court did not err when it found that Haugen violated the terms of his agreement when he violated the law. In his written plea agreement, Haugen agreed to abide by any court-imposed conditions; the court orally imposed a no-violations-of-law condition, twice mentioned it, and explained it to him: “You must have no violations of law, whatsoever.” Haugen did not object to that condition at sentencing and in fact acquiesced to it. Haugen signed the agreement after the court imposed the condition. He then violated it. Haugen’s conviction therefore was appropriately entered.

Read the full court opinion

Post a Comment