State v. Connelley, 2026 UT App 129 (per curiam)

Criminal

The Utah Court of Appeals held:

(1) The district court erred by not merging three charges for unlawful acquisition into the aggravated robbery charge because Defendant’s acts were all part of the same robbery.
(2) The district court erred by not resolving alleged inaccuracies in Defendant’s PSI when it did not discuss or consider Defendant’s objections The matter was remanded for the limited purpose of resolving the objections to the PSI that were not adequately addressed.
(3) The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing consecutive sentences because the court did not fail to consider all the legally relevant factors.

Practice tip:

There is no affirmative duty on a defendant to confer and resolve an objection to a PSI prior to sentencing.

Judicial tip:

When addressing an objection to a PSI, the court has a statutory duty to consider and resolve an objection to the accuracy of the PSI, which means—at a minimum—making a finding as to whether the PSI is inaccurate.

Read the full court opinion

by The Appellate Group

2026, Court of Appeals, Criminal, Q3

The Appellate Group