Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Hoffman

Court of Appeals of Utah

September 8, 2017

State of Utah, Appellee,
v.
John Levi Hoffman, Appellant.

         Fourth District Court, Provo Department The Honorable David N. Mortensen No. 111401279

          Dustin M. Parmley, Attorney for Appellant

          Sean D. Reyes and Karen A. Klucznik, Attorneys for Appellee

          Judge Jill M. Pohlman authored this Opinion, in which Judges Gregory K. Orme and Kate A. Toomey concurred.

          POHLMAN, JUDGE

         ¶1 John Levi Hoffman appeals the district court's revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his prison sentence. We affirm.

         BACKGROUND

         ¶2 In August 2011, Hoffman pleaded guilty to twenty counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, all second degree felonies. The district court sentenced him to one to fifteen years in prison on each count. It then suspended the sentence and placed Hoffman on probation for thirty-six months.

         ¶3 The conditions of Hoffman's probation required, among other things, that Hoffman "[e]nter into, participate in and successfully complete sex offender therapy as determined by the treating facility, therapists and the Utah Department of Corrections." In July 2014, Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) filed a Progress/Violation Report with the district court, reporting Hoffman's "[f]ailure to complete probation in the standard allotted time frame." AP&P stated that Hoffman had "made slow but steady progress, " that he was on track to "complete his financial obligation within the next few months, " that he "reports regularly, " and that "field visits to his residence have found nothing of note." However, with his "progress in sex offender treatment coming at a slower pace, " AP&P concluded that he would "need additional time to successfully complete that program" and recommended that his probation be extended for an additional thirty-six months. The district court approved the request.

         ¶4 Nine months later, in April 2015, AP&P filed a second Progress/Violation Report in which it indicated that Hoffman had been "unsuccessfully discharged" from sex offender treatment through the Intermountain Specialized Abuse Treatment Center (ISAT) under the following circumstances:

In September 2014, while disclosing and preparing for a polygraph examination, Mr. Hoffman admitted that he had been viewing pornography beginning in October 2013 through July 2014, also that he had been at his brother's residence (more than a dozen times) with no consideration for Mr. Hoffman's nieces and nephews being present and that Mr. Hoffman had been to parks, trails and church without approved supervisors. Due to the violations of treatment and probation, Mr. Hoffman . . . was placed on a zero tolerance stipulation with treatment at ISAT. Mr. Hoffman continued with treatment.
On April 8, 2015, information was received from ISAT that Mr. Hoffman continued to be "combative and defensive during treatment, " that he admitted he had been attending [Utah Valley University] dances and fondling women's breasts and buttocks, Mr. Hoffman had failed his recent polygraph test, admitted he had continued to look at pornography and had violated the terms of his zero tolerance contract with ISAT. Thus, Mr. Hoffman was unsuccessfully discharged from treatment.

         AP&P requested that the district court hold an order to show cause hearing to determine whether Hoffman had violated the terms of probation and recommended, should Hoffman be found in violation, that his probation be terminated as unsuccessful and his prison sentence be reinstated.

         ¶5 At the request of Hoffman's attorney, the district court ordered that Hoffman undergo a competency evaluation. Although the evaluators observed that Hoffman suffered from cognitive impairments, they opined that he was competent. The district court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.