Utah Court of Appeals
Can a defendant claim plain error for sentencing without a presentence investigation report? State v. Sanchez Explained
Summary
Defendant Greg Paul Sanchez appealed his sentences for two drug distribution convictions, claiming the district court committed plain error by sentencing him without a presentence investigation report. Sanchez had refused to cooperate with Adult Probation and Parole for the PSI and specifically requested the court to proceed with sentencing without it.
Analysis
In State v. Sanchez, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can challenge sentencing procedures they specifically requested. The case provides important guidance on the invited error doctrine and its application to sentencing proceedings.
Background and Facts
Greg Paul Sanchez pleaded no contest to drug distribution charges and was ordered to complete a presentence investigation report (PSI). However, Sanchez initially sought to withdraw his pleas and refused to cooperate with Adult Probation and Parole. When the PSI could not be completed due to his non-cooperation and the assigned agent’s retirement, Sanchez’s counsel specifically requested the court to “proceed with sentencing” without the PSI. The district court confirmed this was Sanchez’s wish and sentenced him to the exact concurrent prison terms he had requested.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the district court committed plain error by sentencing Sanchez without a PSI, despite his explicit request to proceed without one. Sanchez argued on appeal that the court lacked sufficient information about his criminal history and personal circumstances to impose an appropriate sentence.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals applied the invited error doctrine, which prevents parties from claiming error for actions they specifically requested. The court noted that any error in proceeding without a PSI was invited when Sanchez “failed to request a continuance to obtain a PSI and instead asked to be sentenced without one.” The court also found that Sanchez had adequate opportunity to present relevant sentencing information and received the exact sentence he requested.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that strategic choices have consequences in appellate practice. Defense counsel must carefully weigh the benefits of proceeding to sentencing against the potential value of a PSI. Once a defendant requests to proceed without a PSI, the invited error doctrine will likely preclude any appellate challenge to that decision.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Sanchez
Citation
2017 UT App 229
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170150-CA
Date Decided
December 14, 2017
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant cannot claim plain error for sentencing without a presentence investigation report when the defendant specifically requested the court to proceed with sentencing without the PSI.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for sentencing decisions; plain error for unpreserved claims
Practice Tip
Carefully consider whether to waive a PSI at sentencing, as the invited error doctrine will likely preclude any appellate challenge to proceeding without the report.
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.