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

How can we help you?

Call us at 801-448-7451, or use this contact form.

    Related Articles

    State v Buranek, 2025 UT App 92
    This appeal involved a question of whether a trial court improperly denied a defendant’s motion for a directed verdict, claiming he had been...
    June 23, 2025
    State v. Christensen: Motion to Sever
    A Motion to sever is granted when it is believed that different defendants or charges need to be tried separately. In the recent Utah Court of...
    June 18, 2025
    Utah Supreme Court Narrows Human Trafficking Law in State v. Andrus
    May 2025 - The Utah Supreme Court just made it harder to convict someone of child trafficking without solid proof of a transaction. In State v....
    June 4, 2025

    Ready to explore our other articles?