Must Utah courts issue permanent injunctions for attempted stalking convictions? State v. Thalab Explained

In State v. Thalab, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether permanent criminal stalking injunctions are mandatory upon conviction for attempted stalking, affirming that such injunctions are required by statute and that failure to issue them constitutes an illegal sentence.

Background and Facts

Thalab pled guilty to attempted stalking in 2017 and was sentenced to jail time and probation. However, the sentencing court failed to issue a permanent criminal stalking injunction despite statutory requirements. In 2023, when Thalab sought to expunge his conviction, the State opposed the petition and moved to correct his sentence, arguing that the missing injunction made the original sentence illegal under rule 22(e).

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed two primary issues: first, whether the 2017 version of Utah Code section 76-5-106.5 mandated permanent criminal stalking injunctions for attempted stalking convictions, and second, whether Thalab was eligible for expungement given the corrected sentence.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Following its precedent in State v. Kropf, the court held that the statutory language using “shall be issued” made permanent criminal stalking injunctions mandatory upon conviction for both stalking and attempted stalking. The court rejected Thalab’s arguments to overrule Kropf and found no legislative abrogation in subsequent amendments. The district court properly corrected the illegal sentence under rule 22(e), making Thalab ineligible for expungement under Utah Code section 77-40a-303(2)(f).

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that permanent criminal stalking injunctions are mandatory consequences of stalking and attempted stalking convictions. Practitioners should review older stalking convictions to ensure proper injunctions were issued, as missing injunctions can be corrected years later and affect expungement eligibility. The ruling also demonstrates the continuing vitality of stare decisis in statutory interpretation absent clear legislative abrogation.