Can Utah courts consider psychological evaluations from prior cases at sentencing? State v. Wilkes Explained

In State v. Wilkes, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether defense counsel’s failure to object to a court’s consideration of a psychosexual evaluation from a prior case constituted ineffective assistance of counsel, and whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in imposing a prison sentence.

Background and Facts

Wilkes was convicted of unlawful sexual conduct with a sixteen-year-old victim. Previously, he had been convicted of sexual battery involving a fourteen-year-old and had completed a psychosexual evaluation and treatment. During the sentencing hearing for the current case, the court considered the psychosexual evaluation from the prior case, which revealed that Wilkes had denied ever having sexual contact with anyone under seventeen—despite having already abused the victim in the current case at the time of that evaluation.

Key Legal Issues

Wilkes raised two main arguments: (1) his counsel was constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to the court’s consideration of the “outdated, unreliable, and irrelevant” psychosexual evaluation, and (2) the court abused its discretion by sentencing him to prison instead of probation, particularly given his completion of treatment and rehabilitation efforts.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals rejected both arguments. Regarding ineffective assistance, the court found that counsel had sound strategic reasons for not objecting to the evaluation. The evaluation could actually support Wilkes’s rehabilitation argument by serving as a “benchmark” to show his progress since 2013. Additionally, objecting would have been futile because the evaluation was both reliable (prepared by a licensed psychologist) and relevant (it contained information about Wilkes’s mindset during the time period when he abused the victim).

On the sentencing discretion issue, the court emphasized that there is no entitlement to probation and that sentencing courts have wide latitude. The court properly considered both aggravating factors (predatory nature of the offense, extensive criminal history, lack of victim empathy) and mitigating factors (completion of treatment, educational progress, time already served).

Practice Implications

This decision highlights the importance of strategic thinking when dealing with prior evaluations at sentencing. Rather than automatically objecting to older psychological assessments, practitioners should consider whether such documents might actually support their client’s rehabilitation narrative by demonstrating progress over time. The case also reinforces that Utah sentencing courts have broad discretion and that successful challenges require showing that “no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the district court.”