Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts consider dismissed charges during sentencing? State v. Akers Explained
Summary
Jason Akers attempted to entice a 13-year-old girl online (actually an undercover agent) and was arrested while waiting to meet her with THC gummy worms, methamphetamine, and a handgun. He pled guilty to enticement of a minor, dealing harmful materials to a minor, and firearm possession by a restricted person, with other charges dismissed including THC possession. The district court relied on the THC gummy worms when imposing a prison sentence despite their connection to dismissed charges.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Akers, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a district court may rely on information about dismissed charges when imposing sentence, even when that information was not directly relevant to the charges for which the defendant was convicted.
Background and Facts
Jason Akers, a California resident, used social media to communicate with what he believed was a 13-year-old Utah girl but was actually an undercover federal agent. Akers arranged to meet the “girl” and promised to bring THC gummy worms, among other items. When arrested at the meeting location, officers found the THC gummies, methamphetamine, and a handgun in his vehicle. Akers pled guilty to enticement of a minor, dealing harmful materials to a minor, and firearm possession by a restricted person. The State dismissed six other charges, including possession of the THC gummies.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the district court abused its discretion by considering the THC gummy worms during sentencing when that information related to a dismissed charge. Akers argued the information was irrelevant and unreliable. He also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for his attorney’s failure to object to the information in the presentence investigation report.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the information was both reliable and relevant. The court emphasized that district courts may “consider a wide range of evidence” when fashioning sentences, and information does not become irrelevant simply because it relates to dismissed charges. The THC gummy worms were relevant to the enticement charge because Akers had promised to bring them for the victim, and they were relevant to the firearm charge because THC possession qualified him as a restricted person under Utah law.
Practice Implications
This decision confirms that plea negotiations do not insulate defendants from having dismissed charges considered during sentencing. Defense counsel should carefully review presentence investigation reports for accuracy and relevance, recognizing that information about dismissed charges may still be considered if it bears on the circumstances of the remaining offenses or the defendant’s background.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Akers
Citation
2018 UT App 235
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20170713-CA
Date Decided
December 20, 2018
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A district court does not abuse its discretion by considering reliable and relevant information about dismissed charges when imposing sentence, even when that information relates to conduct for which the defendant was not convicted.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for sentencing decisions; ineffective assistance of counsel claims reviewed as a matter of law when raised for the first time on appeal
Practice Tip
Even when charges are dismissed as part of a plea agreement, ensure the presentence investigation report accurately reflects the circumstances, as courts may properly consider this information during sentencing if it bears relevance to the remaining charges.
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.