Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Ewell

Court of Appeals of Utah

Decided August 17, 1993No. 920379-CAPublished

1ConcurrenceJackson, Judge

I concur with the result reached today. However, I write separately to point out that the term “convicted,” as used in Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203(4) (1990), means the establishment of guilt, not the imposition of the judgment and sentence upon a finding of guilt. While I recognize that the word “convicted” is used in either context in various statutes and procedural rules,1 it is apparent that the legislature used the term “convict*1364ed” in the enhancement statute at issue to mean the establishment of guilt.

The legislature chose to require that a person be “sentenced” to a term of imprisonment…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Moore v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu, United States of America v. James David ThornbrughCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
  3. State v. GarciaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1983
  4. Padilla v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
  5. State v. AkanaHawaii Supreme Court · 1985

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API