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 Smith, 2025 UT App 35 – Destroyed Evidence
    Smith was convicted by a jury at trial on a felony charge of rape. He raised several issues on appeal, including multiple claims of ineffective...
    March 20, 2025
    State v Johnson, 2025 UT App 13
    In Utah, when a criminal defendant requests a jury instruction for an affirmative defense, the court must give that instruction if evidence has been...
    March 3, 2025
    Case Brief: In Re K.M., 2025 UT App 17
    Under Utah law (Utah Code § 80-3-409), when reunification services are provided, the court must determine whether the child can be safely returned...
    February 24, 2025

    Ready to explore our other articles?