Utah Court of Appeals
Can defendants challenge sentences they jointly recommended on appeal? State v. Hoffman Explained
Summary
Hoffman appealed her sentence for attempted possession of a controlled substance, arguing the district court erred by imposing supervised probation and treatment requirements. The court imposed the exact sentence jointly recommended by both parties, and Hoffman responded “okay” to the probation conditions.
Analysis
Background and Facts
In State v. Hoffman, Amelia Suzanne Hoffman was charged with possession of a controlled substance, a third-degree felony. She entered a no contest plea to an amended charge of attempted possession of a controlled substance, a class A misdemeanor. Hoffman’s defense counsel and the State jointly recommended that she serve twelve months of Salt Lake County probation, obtain a substance abuse evaluation with recommended treatment, complete fifty hours of community service, and pay a $50 recoupment fee. The district court imposed this exact sentence, along with standard probation conditions including no new offenses, no drug or alcohol use, and random drug testing. Hoffman responded “okay” to these conditions.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Hoffman could challenge her sentence on appeal under either plain error review or Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(e), despite failing to preserve the issue at trial. Hoffman argued the district court erred by imposing supervised probation rather than unsupervised probation, claiming the sentence was excessive and violated due process.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. Regarding plain error, the court applied the invited error doctrine, holding that defendants cannot invoke plain error review when they invited the alleged error. Since the district court imposed the sentence jointly recommended by both parties, any error was invited. The court also rejected Hoffman’s Rule 22(e) argument, explaining that illegal sentence review is narrowly limited to jurisdictional defects or sentences exceeding statutory ranges—neither of which applied here.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces critical preservation requirements in criminal sentencing. Defense counsel must object at trial to preserve sentencing challenges for appeal. Joint sentencing recommendations create particularly strong invited error barriers to appellate review. The court’s footnote reference to Anders briefs suggests counsel should consider whether frivolous appeals serve clients’ interests. Practitioners should carefully evaluate sentencing recommendations and preserve specific objections to maintain appellate options.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Hoffman
Citation
2017 UT App 70
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150894-CA
Date Decided
April 27, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant cannot invoke plain error review to challenge a sentence that was jointly recommended by defense counsel and the prosecution, as such challenges constitute invited error.
Standard of Review
Plain error review for unpreserved claims
Practice Tip
Always preserve sentencing objections at trial, as joint recommendations create invited error that bars plain error review on 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.