State v. Allred
State v. Allred, 2026 UT App 1 (Mortensen, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- The district court did not err in in extending a continuous protective order (CPO) to include other members of Defendant’s household, including his biological children.
- Defendant was not prejudiced by the initial lack of notice of the request for the CPO.
- The district court did not violate the statute by entering the CPO more than four months after sentencing.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding clear and convincing evidence supported issuing a CPO.
- Practice tip: Under Utah Code Section 78B-7-805, there is on prohibition on issuing a postsentencing CPO.