Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah courts issue permanent injunctions for attempted stalking convictions? State v. Thalab Explained
Summary
Thalab appealed the denial of his expungement petition after the district court corrected his 2017 sentence for attempted stalking to include a permanent criminal stalking injunction. The court determined that the sentencing court had violated a statutory obligation by failing to issue the mandatory injunction at the time of conviction.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
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.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Thalab
Citation
2026 UT App 43
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20240351-CA
Date Decided
March 26, 2026
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A permanent criminal stalking injunction is mandatory upon conviction for attempted stalking under the 2017 version of Utah Code section 76-5-106.5, and failure to impose such an injunction constitutes an illegal sentence correctable under rule 22(e).
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of statutory interpretation and rule interpretation; clear error for factual findings and correctness for legal determinations regarding expungement
Practice Tip
When reviewing stalking convictions from 2017, check whether a permanent criminal stalking injunction was issued—if not, the sentence may be illegal and correctable under rule 22(e) even years after sentencing.
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.