Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts revoke probation after service is delayed due to the probationer's absence? State v. Reedy Explained
Summary
Robert Reedy was placed on probation for theft in 1992. When he violated probation by leaving Utah without permission and failing to check in, a violation report was filed and warrant issued before his probation expired, though he was not served until two years later when he returned to Utah. The trial court revoked his probation.
Analysis
Background and Facts
Robert Reedy was convicted of third-degree felony theft and placed on 18 months’ probation in May 1992. In June 1993, Adult Probation and Parole filed a violation report with the court, alleging that Reedy had failed to check in since March 1993, left for California without permission, and failed to pay restitution and fines. The trial court issued a bench warrant and order to show cause, but Reedy did not return to Utah until May 1995, when he was finally served. After admitting to the violations, the trial court revoked his probation.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to revoke probation when the violation report was filed within the probation period, but the probationer was not served until after the probation period expired due to his absence from Utah.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals interpreted Utah Code section 77-18-1(11)(b), which provides that “[t]he running of the probation period is tolled upon the filing of a violation report with the court.” The court emphasized that the plain language of the statute does not require service within the probation period. The court distinguished earlier cases like State v. Green and Smith v. Cook, which interpreted earlier versions of the statute without the relevant tolling provision. Importantly, the court noted that Reedy made service impracticable by leaving Utah without permission, falling within the exception contemplated in Smith for situations where probationers evade supervision.
Practice Implications
This decision confirms that timely filing of violation reports preserves the court’s jurisdiction to revoke probation, even when service is delayed. Practitioners should ensure violation reports are filed before probation expires, particularly when probationers have absconded. The ruling provides important protection for the state’s ability to enforce probation conditions when defendants attempt to evade supervision by leaving the jurisdiction.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Reedy
Citation
1997 UT App
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 950638-CA
Date Decided
April 17, 1997
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The filing of a probation violation report with the court tolls the running of the probation period, and service of the violation notice within the probation period is not required under Utah Code section 77-18-1(11)(b).
Standard of Review
Not specified
Practice Tip
File probation violation reports and obtain warrants before the probation period expires to preserve the court’s jurisdiction, even if service cannot be immediately effectuated due to the probationer’s absence.
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.