Utah Court of Appeals
What must trial courts do when defendants dispute PSI information? State v. Johnson Explained
Summary
Johnson appealed his sentences for attempted sodomy on a child and attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child, challenging the trial court’s failure to adequately resolve disputed information in his presentence investigation report regarding a 1978 lewdness conviction. The trial court relied on a BCI report to determine the conviction was accurate and relevant to sentencing scoring.
Analysis
In State v. Johnson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the procedural requirements for trial courts when defendants challenge information in their presentence investigation reports (PSI). This case provides important guidance for appellate practitioners on preserving challenges to PSI accuracy and reliability.
Background and Facts
Johnson pleaded guilty to attempted sodomy on a child and attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child involving his granddaughters. His PSI included a 1978 lewdness conviction that added points to his sex offender matrix scoring, increasing his presumptive prison term by twenty months. Johnson disputed the conviction through counsel, claiming he was only booked and released with no charges filed. The probation officer testified the information came from Johnson’s BCI report, and Johnson had no additional evidence to contradict it.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed two main issues: whether the trial court complied with Utah Code section 77-18-1(6)(a) requiring courts to determine the “relevance and accuracy” of contested PSI information on the record, and whether Johnson preserved his challenge to the reliability of BCI reports for appellate review.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from State v. Jaeger, where a trial court failed to make any findings. Here, the trial court specifically asked defense counsel for additional evidence, heard testimony from the probation officer, and determined the PSI scoring was “appropriate.” The court found these actions satisfied the statutory requirement for on-the-record determinations of relevance and accuracy. Regarding reliability, the court held Johnson failed to preserve this issue by not making specific objections to the BCI report’s reliability at sentencing.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the importance of making comprehensive, specific objections when challenging PSI information. Practitioners must distinguish between accuracy challenges (whether the information is factually correct) and reliability challenges (whether the source is dependable). Simply disputing accuracy without addressing reliability may waive important appellate arguments. Additionally, practitioners should request additional time under section 77-18-1(6)(a) if they need to gather contradictory evidence.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Johnson
Citation
2006 UT App 3
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20050050-CA
Date Decided
January 12, 2006
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Trial courts fulfill their statutory duty under Utah Code section 77-18-1(6)(a) when they make findings on the record determining that disputed PSI information is both relevant and accurate, even when based solely on BCI reports.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding trial court compliance with statutory duties; broad discretion for trial courts in considering sentencing information that comports with due process
Practice Tip
When challenging PSI information at sentencing, make specific objections to both accuracy and reliability on the record, and request additional time to gather contradictory evidence if needed to preserve issues for appeal.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.