State v Salazar-Lopez, 2024 UT App 61

Facts Mr. Salazar-Lopez “pled guilty to multiple sexual offenses against a child” that were committed while he was also a minor. At the time these offenses occurred Utah Code 76-3-209 provided that if a minor (under the age of eighteen, above the age of fourteen) was convicted of a qualifying…
attorney meeting with client at desk
Facts

Mr. Salazar-Lopez “pled guilty to multiple sexual offenses against a child” that were committed while he was also a minor. At the time these offenses occurred Utah Code 76-3-209 provided that if a minor (under the age of eighteen, above the age of fourteen) was convicted of a qualifying sexual offense they would not be required to register with the sex offender registry. The parties also agreed at the time of Mr. Salazar-Lopez’ plea that he would not be subject to registration.  

When Mr. Salazar-Lopez was sentenced he was ordered to comply with the sex offender Group A conditions during his period of probation (120 months). Group A conditions include multiple requirements relating to attending therapy, no contact with children under eighteen, prior approval by AP&P for change of employment or residence, as well as a requirement to comply and register with the Utah Sex Offender Registration and DNA specimen requirements.  

Issue

Mr. Salazar-Lopez objected to, and appealed his case on the grounds that the district court reached a flawed legal conclusion in imposing the Group A conditions generally, when he statutorily could not be subject to the registration requirement. Mr. Salazar-Lopez argued that because he could not be required to register as a sex offender, he cannot be “required to abide by the conditions of that registration” (the additional Group A requirements). In Mr. Salazar-Lopez’ view the conditions such as no contact with children under eighteen or obtaining approval from AP&P prior to change of employment/residence are “directed at those who are registered sex offenders.”  

Ruling

The Utah Court of Appeals agreed that Mr. Salazar-Lopez could not be subject to the registration requirement of the Group A conditions, but rejected the remainder of his argument concerning the Group A conditions generally. The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Group A conditions are not included within the understanding of the sex offender registration, which is what Mr. Salazar-Lopez is statutorily exempted from. Mr. Salazar-Lopez is not exempted from any and all conditions that may be imposed on a sex offender simply by being exempted from registering as a sex offender. Because the district court has considerable discretion in creating sentencing conditions the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the order to comply with the Group A conditions during Mr. Salazar-Lopez’ probation, with the exclusion of the registration requirement found within said conditions.  

Originally Published: August 25, 2024

Related Articles

Furman and Gregg: Capital Punishment Changes in the United States
Death Penalty Mitigation: Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia The  United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v....
September 4, 2024
State v Cesspooch, 2024 UT App 15
The Utah Court of Appeals addressed two related issues in this appeal from a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. These issues included:...
August 29, 2024
State v Tran, 2024 UT 7
Facts In September, 2015 a grandmother did not arrive to pick up her eight-year old grandson from school despite previously always arriving on time...
August 29, 2024

Ready to explore our other articles?