State v. Rynhart
State v. Rynhart, 2025 UT App 148 (Harris, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- No exceptional circumstance existed to justify review of unpreserved constitutional challenge to statute governing presentence reports.
- Counsel was not ineffective for failing to correct errors in presentence report where errors were either later resolved or not prejudicial.
- Rule 22 challenge was unpreserved where defendant had failed to submit rule 22 motion for decision in the district court.
- The State was not equitably estopped from recommending prison based on statements made by defense counsel.
- Counsel was not ineffective for promising probation where defendant acknowledged possibility of prison in plea agreement and before the court.
- Practice Tip: When an appellant has made an unpreserved argument, and the appellee has completely failed to respond, the appellate court may, on its own initiative, raise preservation as an alternative basis for affirmance.
- A rule 22 issue is preserved for appeal only if the issue was raised in a motion made and adjudicated in the district court.