When must a Utah district court resolve objections to a presentence investigation report on the record? State v. Connelley Explained

Background and facts

Chad Connelley was convicted following a brutal attack on a stranger, Jessica, including two counts of aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, and three counts of unlawful acquisition of a credit card — one for each credit card he took from the victim. At sentencing, defense counsel identified three alleged inaccuracies in the presentence investigation report (PSI): that Connelley’s prosocial friends had criminal backgrounds, that his family communication and background were mischaracterized, and that he had at least six violations during his current incarceration. The district court responded only with “Okay. Anything else?” and proceeded with sentencing without making any findings on the objections. The court imposed consecutive sentences on all convictions.

Key legal issues

Three issues were presented on appeal: (1) whether the unlawful acquisition charges should have merged into the aggravated robbery charge under the lesser-included-offense doctrine and Utah’s single-criminal-episode statute; (2) whether the district court fulfilled its statutory duty under Utah Code § 77-18-103(5)(a) to resolve contested PSI information on the record; and (3) whether the district court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences.

Court’s analysis and holding

On merger, the State conceded error. The court vacated all three unlawful acquisition convictions, holding that the variant charged — acquiring a financial transaction card without the cardholder’s consent — was a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, and that all thefts arising from the same robbery must be treated as a single criminal episode under Utah Code § 76-1-402.

On the PSI, the court held that even under the amended statute — which no longer requires written findings unless the court first finds an inaccuracy — the district court still bears a threshold duty to consider the objection raised and make at least an implicit finding as to accuracy. A court may discharge that duty without explicit findings if, from the circumstances, it is reasonable to infer the court found the PSI accurate. But here, the court’s lone “Okay. Anything else?” gave no indication it had considered the objections at all. The court remanded for the limited purpose of resolving the PSI objections on the record, noting that PSI statements may be used at future parole hearings, making on-the-record resolution essential.

On consecutive sentencing, the court affirmed, finding that the district court had considered the statutory factors under Utah Code § 76-3-401(2) — gravity of the offenses, number of victims, and the defendant’s history and rehabilitative needs — even if it weighed them differently than Connelley preferred. With over fifty charges and convictions on Connelley’s adult record and an extraordinarily violent offense, no abuse of discretion was shown.

Practice implications

This opinion clarifies that the 2021 amendments to Utah’s PSI statute narrowed — but did not eliminate — the sentencing court’s duty to resolve PSI objections. Courts are no longer required to enter written findings unless they find an inaccuracy, but they must still consider each objection and make at least an implicit accuracy determination. Practitioners should not assume the court’s statutory duty will protect a preserved objection: when a court fails to respond substantively, immediately request a continuance or introduce supporting evidence before sentencing concludes. On merger, practitioners charging or defending cases involving multiple theft-related offenses arising from a single robbery should carefully analyze lesser-included-offense exposure under both the common-law merger doctrine and Utah’s single-criminal-episode statute.