Must trial courts make written findings about mitigating factors in sentencing? State v. Bunker Explained

In State v. Bunker, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts must make explicit written findings regarding mitigating factors when imposing sentences.

Background and Facts

Jess Amos Bunker was convicted of four counts of forcible sexual abuse and one count of attempted bail jumping. The trial court sentenced him to prison with consecutive sentences rather than probation. On appeal, Bunker argued the trial court exceeded its discretion by failing to make explicit findings regarding his distinguished military career, lack of criminal history, psychosexual evaluation showing low risk of reoffending, and access to family support and treatment.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether a trial court’s failure to make explicit written findings about mitigating factors constitutes an abuse of discretion in sentencing, even when those factors were presented to and reviewed by the court.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals applied the abuse of discretion standard, noting that defendants bear the burden of demonstrating the trial court failed to consider legally relevant factors. The court emphasized that neither Utah case law nor statutes require specific written findings in sentencing orders. Importantly, the court held that “the trial court’s silence, by itself,” does not demonstrate failure to consider proper factors. When the record shows the trial court reviewed information about relevant factors, appellate courts can infer adequate consideration occurred.

Here, the record clearly showed the trial court had read the pre-sentence investigation report, psychosexual evaluation, military service documentation, and heard testimony from family members about support and treatment options.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that trial courts enjoy substantial discretion in sentencing decisions. Defense counsel should ensure all mitigating evidence is thoroughly presented and documented in the record, as appellate courts will presume consideration when the record shows the court reviewed relevant materials. The ruling also clarifies that disagreement with the trial court’s weighing of factors does not establish an abuse of discretion.