Adult Sentencing,
Release, & Supervision
Guidelines
2023
STATE OF UTAH
Utah Sentencing Commission
Daniel Strong, Director
Utah State Capitol Complex
P.O. Box 142330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-2330
Phone: (801) 538-1031
Fax: (801) 538-1024
Email: [email protected]
Effective April 1, 2023
UTAH SENTENCING COMMISSION COPYRIGHT. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
This manual and interactive forms can be found at
https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 5
Who Wrote These Guidelines? 5
What Do These Guidelines Do? 6
How Should These Guidelines Be Used? 7
II. Assessment 8
Assessment Overview 8
How to Find and Use Assessment Tools 9
III. Behavior Management 10
Behavior Management Overview 10
Behavior Management Decision Framework 11
Behavior Management Form Instructions 12
Criminal History Scoring Instructions - Forms 1, 2, 4, & 5 12
Matrix Calculation - Forms 1, 2, 4, & 5 14
Sex & Kidnap Offenses Matrix Instructions - Form 3 16
Financial Offenses with Serious Loss Matrix Instructions - Form 4 20
Jail as a Condition of Felony Probation Matrix Instructions - Form 5 21
Misdemeanor Matrix Instructions - Form 6 21
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Instructions - Form 7 22
Sample Behavior Management Form Tree 24
Behavior Management Forms 26
Form 1 - General Matrix 26
Form 2 - Homicide Matrix 27
Form 3 - Sex Offense Matrix 28
Form 4 - Financial Offense with Serious Loss Matrix 29
Form 5 - Jail as a Condition of Probation Matrix 30
Form 6 - Misdemeanor Matrix 31
Form 7 - Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances 32
Form 7A - Special Aggravation and Mitigation: Sexual Exploitation of a Child 33
Behavior Management Tools 34
Instructions 34
Tool 1 - Evidence Based Supervision Practices 36
Tool 2A - Supervision Accomplishments Table 37
Tool 2B - Supervision Violations Table 38
Tool 3 - Decision-Making Authority Matrix 39
Tool 4 - Graduated Incentives 40
Tool 5 - Graduated Responses and Sanctions 41
Tool 6 - Exceptions to Incarceration Caps 42
IV. Termination 43
Termination Overview 43
Mandatory vs. Discretionary Conditions of the Supervision Length Guidelines 43
Supervision Length Guidelines 44
Supervision Length Tables 44
Early Termination Review Process 45
Mandatory Review Process 46
Restitution Process 47
Other Supervision Length Guideline Instructions 48
Addenda 50
Addendum A: Crime Column Severity Listing 50
Addendum B: Categorization of Offenses 51
Addendum C: Categorization of Sex Offenses 62
Addendum D: Policy Implicit in the Guidelines 65
Addendum E: Evidence-Based Framework 68
Addendum F: User Guide 75
Addendum G: Central Eight Criminal Risk Factors and Treatment Targets 81
Addendum H: The Responsivity Principle and Factors 82
Addendum I: Stages of Change Model 83
Addendum J: PSI Process for Low Risk Individuals 85
Addendum K: Frequently Asked Questions 86
Addendum L: Glossary of Terms 89
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 5
I. USER GUIDE
THE SENTENCING COMMISSION
The Utah Sentencing Commission is a group of 28 statutorily designated and appointed members
representing all facets of the state criminal justice system, including: judges, prosecutors, defense
attorneys, legislators, victim advocates, law enforcement ocials, treatment specialists, ethnic
minority representatives, corrections ocials, parole authorities, juvenile justice representatives,
citizen representatives, and other stakeholders.
STATUTORY CHARGE
The Sentencing Commission is charged pursuant to Utah Code § 63M-7-404 with developing guidelines and recommendations to
all three branches of government regarding the sentencing, release, and supervision of juvenile and adult individuals who commit
delinquent or criminal offenses. These guidelines and recommendations must:
• respond to public comment;
• relate sentencing practices and correctional resources;
• increase equity in criminal sentencing;
• better dene responsibility in criminal sentencing; and
• enhance the discretion of sentencing judges while preserving the role of the Board of Pardons and
Parole and Youth Parole Authority.
In addition, the Commission has implemented the following specic statutory directives in these Guidelines:
• modify the guidelines to implement the recommendations of the CCJJ for reducing recidivism for the purposes of
protecting the public and ensuring ecient use of state funds;
• modify criminal history scoring in the guidelines, including eliminating double-counting and focusing on factors
relevant to the accurate determination of risk to re-offend;
• establish guidelines for incarceration for probation and parole conditions violations and revocations, including: the
seriousness of the violation, conduct while on probation or parole, and criminal history;
• establish graduated sanctions to facilitate the prompt and effective response to an individual’s conduct while on
probation or parole, including: sanctions in response to probation or parole conditions violations, when violations
should be reported to the Court or Board of Pardons and Parole, and a range of sanctions not exceeding three
consecutive days incarceration and a total of ve days in a 30 day period; and
• establish graduated incentives to facilitate a prompt and effective response to an individual’s compliance with
probation or parole conditions and positive conduct exceeding those terms.
I. Introduction - Who Wrote These Guidelines?
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 6
PURPOSE OF GUIDELINES
The Sentencing, Release, and Supervision Guidelines are intended to help structure decision
making, incorporate an evidence-based criminal justice philosophy, eliminate unwarranted
disparity, and provide a tool to match resources with needs while maintaining the discretion
of the sentencing, release, and supervision authority. The Guidelines do not create any right
or expectation on behalf of any individual, nor do they create a liberty interest on behalf of an
individual convicted of a crime.
For more on the policy implicit in these guidelines, see Addendum D.
GOALS OF SENTENCING, RELEASE, AND SUPERVISION
An appropriate sentence should serve three main goals:
1) Risk management - imposing a sanction appropriate for the offense, the risk presented by the individual, and any
threat to public safety
2) Risk reduction - reducing recidivism risk by targeting resources to the individual’s risks and needs
3) Restitution - repayment of damages to the victim or community impacted by the offense
Although it may not always be possible to serve all three goals simultaneously or perfectly, sentencing, release, and
supervision terms should be structured so that each goal is meaningfully addressed.
EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES
The National Institute of Corrections denes evidence-based practice as “the objective, balanced,and responsible use of
current research and the best available data to guide policy and practice decisions, such that outcomes for consumers are
improved.” Evidence-based practices are not aliated with any one ideology, program, or interest group. The concept that our
practices and policies should be evidence-based means only that we should adopt policies and practices likely to address
the problems they are intended to solve. We should do things that work. Evidence-based practices have been incorporated
throughout these guidelines.
For more on both goals of sentencing and evidence-based practices, see Addendum E.
USER GUIDE
Individuals and institutions impacted by criminal sentencing include defendants, victims, attorneys, family members,
supervising agencies, family members, AP&P agents and PSI investigators, the media, and the community. These various
entities may nd different uses for the guidelines at the different stages of the sentencing process.
For a detailed user guide, see Addendum F.
What Do These Guidelines Do?
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 7
THREE STAGES OF SENTENCING, RELEASE, AND SUPERVISION
Sentencing, release, and supervision of criminal offenders can be broken down into three main stages: Assessment, Behavior
Management, and Termination. The three stages do not occur sequentially--for example, individuals may be assessed when
initially sentenced, assessed again when placed on supervision, and assessed again prior to termination. But every action
related to the sentencing, release, and supervision of an individual can be categorized in one of these stages.
This version of the Guidelines has been reformatted using the Assessment, Behavior Management, and Termination stages as
its framework. All of the behavior management forms, behavior management tools, supervision length guidelines, and other
processes laid out in prior versions of these Guidelines are now included in the stage where they can best be used to inform
decision making.
1) ASSESSMENT - WHO?
The purpose of the assessment stage is to understand the risk and needs of the individual being sentenced. Sentencing,
release, and supervising authorities should assess the individual to determine the risk level, need level, and criminogenic risk
and protective factors affecting the individual. Tools like validated risk assessments are invaluable during the assessment
phase, but they are not a substitute for a structured decision-making process that accounts for all of the unique factors
presented by each case.
2) BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT - WHAT?
The purpose of the behavior management stage is to direct sentencing resources both to manage the instant risk presented
by the individual and meaningfully reduce that risk over time. Behavior management may include incarceration to incapacitate
high risk individuals, paired with risk reduction programming available in custody. Behavior management may also include
community-based programming available during supervision. Assessment should inform behavior management, with
incarceration and intensive supervision resources directed at cases of higher risk and severity. Low risk individuals may need
less behavior management to succeed.
3) TERMINATION - WHEN?
The purpose of the termination stage is to determine when the purposes of sentencing, release, and supervision have been
suciently served such that the sentence should be terminated. Terminating a sentence at the appropriate time is critical to
successfully transitioning an individual back into the community. Planning for termination is a critical piece of sentencing,
release, and supervision.
How Should These Guidelines Be Used?
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 8
II. UTAH SENTENCING & RELEASE GUIDELINES INSTRUCTIONS
II. ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
Assessment Overview
WHAT IS ASSESSMENT?
Assessment is the process by which the sentencing, release, and supervising authorities determine the unique risks and
needs presented by the individual to help craft an appropriate behavior management plan. A validated risk and needs
assessment (“RNA Tool”) is an integral part of this analysis.
WHAT ARE VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENTS?
Validated risk and needs assessments (“RNA Tools”) are actuarial tools that look at both static and dynamic factors to assess
an individual’s risk to re-offend and help create case plans in order to address needs and reduce that risk. Validated tools
have been checked against actual results to ensure their accuracy.
Research has consistently conrmed that using validated RNA Tools to inform decision-making is more accurate than
professional judgment alone in predicting risk of recidivism. Professional judgment alone tends to overestimate risk and
is especially prone to unconscious bias. Professional judgment guided by RNA Tools can provide for better outcomes and
more effective behavior management plans. For a more in-depth history of risk assessments, visit: https://psrac.bja.ojp.gov/
basics/history.
HOW SHOULD I USE A VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENT?
RNA Tools can identify the specic dynamic risk factors that inuence whether a particular individual is likely to re-offend.
They identify the appropriate targets for interventions which, if effective, will reduce the probability of recidivism. Supervision
and treatment resources should then be tailored based on the risk and needs assessment, as one part of a structured
decision making process.
WHAT ARE THE LIMITS OF VALIDATED RISK ASSESSMENTS?
Sometimes incomplete information can skew the results of risk assessments. It is therefore important to make sure all relevant
information is provided to the assessor. Additionally, some risk assessments work better under specic sets of circumstances.
To learn more about the strengths and weaknesses of a specic risk assessment tool, go to: https://www.rma.scot/research/
rated/
RNA tools are statistically accurate in predicting general risk across a large numbers of individuals, but no assessment tool
can denitively predict a particular individual’s future behavhior. When someone scores low on a risk assessment, it does
not mean that the individual is ne or has no need to change. On the other hand, when someone scores high-risk on an
assessment, it does not mean that there is no hope for that person to change. For these same reasons, RNA tools may not
capture individualized risk in case-specic situations, such as risk to a particular victim.
RNA tools were not designed to replace the proportionality and culpability analysis in Behavior Management Forms 1 -
7. The tools were designed to structure supervision, treatment, and programming. RNA tools are not intended to replace
professional judgment, but to better inform decision-making.
For more information, go to: https://psrac.bja.ojp.gov
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 9
II. UTAH SENTENCING & RELEASE GUIDELINES INSTRUCTIONS
Assessment Tools Used in Utah
Assessment Tools Used in Utah
The following chart summarizes some of the assessment tools currently used to help inform
decision-making in sentencing, release, and supervision:
Type of Tool RNA Tool Description
General Risk
Screening
LSI-R:SV Screening instrument used where it may not be feasible to complete a full assessment. Predicts
violent recidivism and violations while under community supervision, as well as institutional
misconduct. Also indicates which offenders may require a complete assessment.
Used in jail, pretrial, or probation intake as a triage tool.
General Risk
Assessment
LS/RNR Measures risk and need factors including the “Central 8” target measures. Assesses rehabilita-
tion needs, risk of recidivism, and other factors relevant to directing supervision and program-
ming. Captures both general and specic risk/need factors. Informs case action plan.
General assessment tool used to help inform decision-making during the probation, prison, and
parole processes. Reassessments conducted every 12 months during community supervision
and every 12 months during institutional supervision or upon signicant change to an assessed
factor.
Sex Offense Static
Risk Assessment
VASOR-2 Static risk tool used to assess risk among adult male sex offenders for most sex offenses. As-
sesses severity of offense and risk of re-offense. Designed for use by mental health profession-
als and probation and parole ocers. Should be used in conjunction with a dynamic risk measure
(SOTIPS).
Sex Offense
Dynamic Risk
Assessment
SOTIPS Dynamic risk tool used to assess risk, treatment, supervision needs, and progress among adult
male sex offenders for most sex offenses. Designed for use by mental health professionals and
probation and parole ocers. Should be used in conjunction with a static risk measure (VA-
SOR-2)
Sex Offense Static
Risk Assessment
Static 99 Measures static risk factors, or historical risk factors, that have been found in research to predict
sexual re-offense. The score on the STATIC-99 can range from 0 to 12 and risk classications
include low, medium-low, medium-high, and high risk. Each risk level is associated with a proba-
bility of sexual re-offense for the study sample for 5, 10, and 15 years.
Sexual Exploita-
tion of a Minor
(Child Pornogra-
phy) Offenses
CPORT Static risk tool used to assess adult males convicted of Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Child Por-
nography) offenses. Scores individuals from 1-5 based on validated risk factors. Used to direct
treatment resources.
Adverse Child-
hood Experience
Analyss
ACEs A large body of research links Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) to chronic health problems,
mental illness, and substance misuse in adulthood. ACEs can also impact future violence victim-
ization and perpetration. Toxic stress from ACEs can change brain development and affect things
such as attention, decision-making, learning, and response to stress.
ACEs are not an aggravating factor, but are assessed at corrections intake and as part of presen-
tence investigations to help direct resources and create a trauma-informed case action plan.
For a complete and regularly updated list of RNA Tools in Utah, visit: justice.utah.gov/sentencing
To learn more about available assessment tools, visit: https://www.rma.scot/research/rated/
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 10
II. UTAH SENTENCING & RELEASE GUIDELINES INSTRUCTIONS
Javed
III. BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT - OVERVIEW
WHAT IS BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT?
In the behavior management phase, the sentencing, release, and supervision authorities determine what measures, including
incarceration, community supervision, risk reduction programming, or other responses, will serve the goals of risk manage-
ment, risk reduction, and restitution.
The Behavior Management Decision-Making Framework can help the sentencing, release, or supervision authority determine
when to use incarceration resources and when community supervision is appropriate.
INCARCERATION AND BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
Determining whether and when to use incarceration is one of the most important tasks of sentencing, release, and supervi-
sion.
Incarceration can serve to incapacitate individuals who present risk that cannot be managed in the community. Incarceration
is also one tool sentencing, release, and supervision authorities have to hold individuals accountable for signicant harm to a
person or a community.
Incarceration on its own should not be considered a behavior management tool that reduces risk, aside from the initial period
of incapacitation. Research has shown incapacitation has minimal specic deterrence effects on the individual upon re-
lease.
1
Incarceration can increase risk factors for lower risk individuals. Where incarceration is ordered, it should be paired
with evidence-based risk-reduction programming.
Incarceration terms laid out in Forms 1-6 reect typical sentencing and release practices for the offenses and criminal history
scores at issue. Form 7 is intended to help sentencing, release, and supervising authorities determine when to deviate upward
or downward from those typical sentences.
COMMUNITY SUPERVISION AND BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT
Community supervision requires monitoring individuals for compliance with the case action plan, responding to accomplish-
ments and violations during the supervision term, reporting signicant accomplishments and violations back to the sentenc-
ing or release authority, and determining when termination of supervision is appropriate.
These guidelines include a number of tools designed to help supervising authorities carry out these tasks. The Evi-
dence-Based Supervision Practices Tool (Tool 1) helps structure effective supervision practices. The Supervision Ac-
complishment and Violations Tools (Tools 2A and 2B) help supervising entities recognize relevant accomplishments and
violations during supervision. The Decision-Making Authority Matrix (Tool 3) helps supervising entities determine which
behaviors can be addressed by supervising authorities and which need to be reported back to the sentencing or release
authority. The Graduated Incentives and Response Tools (Tools 4 and 5) help determine the appropriate response to accom-
plishments and violations. Finally, the Supervision Length Guidelines dictate the length of supervision and provide guidance
on when to consider termination.
1 Petrich, Damon; Pratt,Travis; Jonson, Cheryl; Cullen, Francis. “Custodial Sanctions and Reoffending: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Criminal Justice Vol. 50. Sept. 22, 2021.
Behavior Management - Overview
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 11
Risk assessments and behavior management forms serve as an anchor to help guide sentencing,
release, and supervision decisions, but they are not a substitute for a complete analysis of
the specic factors in each case. This decision framework can help sentencing, release, and
supervision authorities ensure evidence-based factors are considered to craft the best behavior
management plan to serve the goals of risk management, risk reduction, and restitution
1
:
Risk Assessment - An RNA tool helps determine an offender’s likelihood of reoffending and remains the best starting point
for assessment. Using validated RNA Tools to inform decision-making is more accurate than professional judgment alone in
identifying risks and needs.
Offense/Violation Severity - The severity of the instant offense(s) is an important factor. More severe offenses generally
require a more intensive response. The Behavior Management Forms account for risk and severity and provide an anchor
point for this part of the analysis.
Criminal History - Past behavior is a strong predictor of future behavior - a pattern of: early onset of crime, multiple
incarcerations, prior violations, and criminal versatility are all related to increased likelihood of recidivism. Individuals whose
crimes increase in severity are of increased concern. Crime-free periods reect increased stability and reduced likelihood of
recidivism. The criminal history score calculated in the appropriate Behavior Management Form accounts for these factors
and provides an anchor point for this part of the analysis.
Institutional / Community Behavior: Poor institutional adjustment and behavior during community supervision is related
to post-release recidivism. Minor infractions, committed earlier in the offender’s sentence, may be less predictive. Good
institutional adjustment alone is not predictive of successful outcomes.
Ability to Control Behavior- Poor self-regulation is a common aspect of criminal behavior, but considerable diculty in
controlling behavior -- cognitive distortions, entitlement, callousness, and sexual deviance -- may indicate increased risk.
Risk Reduction Programming / Responsivity - Consider risk-reduction programming that has targeted or will target the
individual’s risk and needs. Programs tailored to the individual’s risk, cognitive abilities, gender, learning style, and mental
health are more effective.
Evidence of Change - Completion of risk reduction programming, signicant crime-free periods, a reduction in risk score on a
validated RNA tool, ability to articulate insights related to past behavior, and other evidence of change in behavior patterns is
linked to improved outcomes. Change that reects an understanding of the impact of the crime on victims and the community
is particularly important.
Community Supervision Plans - Consider the options available to manage the individual’s risk in the community. What
resources--employment, pro-social relationships, effective supervision--are available to aid with success in the community?
Does the individual have a concrete and realistic plan for reintigration into the community?
Case-Specic Factors - Consider any other factors unique to the case that warrants special consideration. Although these are
not evidence-based factors, offense notoriety or severity of victim or community impact may be important considerations.
1 This list was developed from Parole Board Canada’s Decision Framework, 2011, Ralph C. Serin
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT DECISION FRAMEWORK
Behavior Management Decision Framework
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 12
II. UTAH SENTENCING & RELEASE GUIDELINES INSTRUCTIONS
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT FORMS - INSTRUCTIONS
The Behavior Management Forms are available in an electronic format. They may be accessed through the Sentencing
Commission’s website at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/.
Except for consecutive and concurrent enhancements, statutory sentencing enhancements are not included in the context of
these guidelines. For example, Utah law concerning repeat and habitual sexual convictions, Utah Code § 76-3-407, or gang
enhancements, Utah Code § 76-3-203.1, should be considered outside of and in addition to these guidelines.
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING INSTRUCTIONS – FORMS 1, 2, 4 & 5
The purpose of the Criminal History Scoring is to provide a standard frame of reference to reduce or enhance the severity of
the sentence based on the prior criminal history and supervision history of the individual. Only score the single highest point
option within a given category. Do not check multiple scores in a single category and then add them. Any negative points
which are deducted for the most recent post-conviction crime-free gap period may not reduce the total score below 0. The
term “prior” is used throughout the criminal history scoring. When scoring the Forms, the term “prior” means a conviction or
adjudication sentenced prior to the current offense regardless of date of offense.
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
• Only prior adult felony convictions with separate adult case numbers that have already been sentenced are counted.
• Where military, federal, or other state(s)’ records are available, court martial convictions or other convictions that would
be equivalent to a felony offense penalty in Utah are counted.
• If multiple convictions arise from a previous single criminal episode, one felony conviction from each separate adult case
number is counted.
• The current offense(s) are not counted.
• Dismissed cases, intelligence information, numerous prior arrests, etc. are not counted
• A “single criminal episode” is dened as “all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an
accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” Utah Code § 76-1-401.
PRIOR CLASS A MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
• Only prior adult class A misdemeanor convictions with separate adult case numbers that have already been sentenced
are counted.
• Where military, federal, or other state(s)’ records are available, court martial convictions or other convictions that would
be equivalent to a Class A misdemeanor offense penalty (i.e. up to 365 days in jail) in Utah are counted.
• If multiple convictions arise from a previous single criminal episode, one Class A conviction from each separate adult
case number is counted.
• If multiple convictions arise from a previous single criminal episode that includes both felony and class A misdemeanor
convictions and an adult felony conviction from that episode has already been counted under “Prior Felony Convictions,”
a misdemeanor conviction from that episode is not counted unless there are separate adult case numbers.
• The current offense(s) is not counted.
• Dismissed cases, intelligence information, numerous prior arrests, etc. are not counted, but may be considered in the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances section of the guidelines.
• A “single criminal episode” is dened as “all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an
accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” Utah Code § 76-1-401.
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 13
SUPERVISION HISTORY
• This item includes only adult supervision history.
• Only post-adjudication or post-conviction federal, AP&P, private or county supervision is counted.
• Neither pre-trial supervision nor pre-trial jail time is counted.
• Instances of court or bench probation without a supervising entity should generally not be considered. Removal from a
Problem Solving Court is the sole exception.
• Every Problem-Solving Court or “RIM” violation/sanction should not be counted in this section. An Order to Show Cause
with revocation and actual removal from the Problem-Solving Court is required in order to count in this section.
• Points are given if the current offense(s) occurred while the individual was on post-adjudicated or post-conviction federal,
state, county, or private supervision. This includes if the current offense occurred while the individual was in jail or prison.
• Points are also given if the current offense(s) occurred while the individual was in a Problem-Solving Court when the
offense resulted in actual removal from the Problem-Solving Court.
• “Prior Revocation” includes a revocation and reinstatement of probation from the courts, a revocation of probation and
imposition of jail time, a revocation of probation and sentence to prison, or a revocation of parole from the Board of Par-
dons and Parole. A continuation of probation or parole is not counted as a “prior revocation”.
• Supervision for trac violations and minor regulatory offenses are not counted.
• Instances of supervision as a juvenile are not counted in this section.
PRIOR PERSON OR FIREARM CONVICTIONS
• Only prior adult or juvenile person or rearm convictions/adjudications that have already been sentenced are counted.
• Where military, federal, or other state(s)’ records are available, court martial convictions or other convictions that would
be equivalent to the Utah penalty for the specic offenses referenced in this section are counted.
• “Misdemeanor Person Offenses” include misdemeanor offenses listed in Addendum B specically as person crimes.
• “Felony Person Offenses” include felony offenses designated in Addendum B specically as person crimes.
• “Person Crime or Firearm Convictions” may include offenses not counted in other sections of the criminal history scoring.
• “Person Crime Convictions” may include juvenile dispositions beyond the ten (10) year limitation in the following section.
• “Firearm Offenses” include felony offenses specically designated in Utah Code § 76-10-500 et seq. Class A misdemean-
or rearm offenses are not included here but would receive points under “Prior Class A Misdemeanor Convictions.”
• “Homicide Offenses” include offenses specically designated in Utah Code § 76-5-201 et seq.
• Prior sex offenses count as person offenses for purposes of criminal history calculation if they involved a human victim.
• The current offense(s) is not counted.
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS
• In order to be counted in this section, the date of the juvenile adjudication must have occurred within ten (10) years of the
current conviction date.
• Where other state(s)’ records are available, juvenile delinquency adjudications that would be equivalent to the offense
penalty in Utah are counted.
• Juvenile felony adjudications that result in a nding of delinquency are counted and should be substantiated on the
record by AP&P for sentencing purposes as well as future recalculation(s) by the Board of Pardons & Parole.
• Every three (3) juvenile Class A misdemeanor adjudications which result in a nding of delinquency count the same as
one (1) juvenile felony adjudication.
• If multiple adjudications arise from a previous single criminal episode, only one nding of delinquency from that episode
is counted.
• Status offenses committed as a juvenile are not counted.
• A “single criminal episode” is dened as “all conduct which is closely related in time and is incident to an attempt or an
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 14
accomplishment of a single criminal objective.” Utah Code § 76-1-401.
• Prior Class A misdemeanor adjudications should not be rounded up. For example, less than 3 Class A misdemeanors = 0
felonies, 3 to 5 misdemeanors = 1 felony, and 6 to 8 Class A misdemeanors = 2 felonies.
• Only those cases that resulted in a nding of delinquency should count. In other words, some adjudication of guilt in the
juvenile system must be found before points are allotted here. Care must be exercised since not every entry on a juvenile
record represents an adjudication.
MOST RECENT POST-CONVICTION CRIME-FREE GAP
• This section replaces the previous subtraction of one point in the Supervision History section for “successful completion”
of supervision.
• Both adult and juvenile offenses with either a conviction or a delinquency adjudication are considered in this section.
• For past probation offenses, the calculation begins at the date of original sentencing or entry of plea in abeyance (unsuc-
cessful PIA).
• For past offenses committed to prison, the calculation begins at the date of release from prison.
• For juvenile offenses, the calculation begins at the date of adjudication for offenses that did not result in secure care
placement; or from the secure care placement release date for offenses that did result in secure care placement. Neither
detention nor community placement is considered secure care.
• The calculation ends at the earliest offense date for which the current guideline is being scored.
• Do not count any infraction, Class C, or Class B trac and other minor regulatory offenses against the gap, consistent
with Utah Code § 77-40-102(10).
• Subtract one point after 3 or more years crime-free (in the most recent post-conviction period).
• Subtract two points after 5 or more years crime-free (in the most recent post-conviction period).
• Subtract three points after 7 or more years crime-free (in the most recent post-conviction period).
• Subtract four points after 10 or more years crime-free (in the most recent post-conviction period).
• Do not calculate this section if an individual has no criminal history or no qualifying criminal history.
• Do not count jail time served, jail time ordered, or other jail sentences in calculating against the crime-free gap.
• Do not calculate RIM sanctions or Problem-Solving Court sanctions including jail time against the gap.
TOTAL SCORE
To arrive at this score, add up the points associated with each category in the Criminal History Score. A total score with all
points counted and subtracted may not result in a score below 0.
CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
Using the Total Score, identify the appropriate Criminal History row: I, II, III, IV, or V using the chart labeled “Criminal History
Row.”
MATRIX CALCULATION – FORMS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6
The rows of each matrix represent differing levels of criminal history and correspond with the total score from the criminal
history score. The columns represent crime categories and correspond with the most serious current offense. The columns
list both an offense level and a crime category. The various levels of shading in the matrix represent suggested dispositions
(disregarding aggravating and mitigating circumstances).
The crime category columns generally ow from left to right indicating the most severe sanction to the least severe sanction.
However, this does not necessarily indicate which crimes are more severe than others. Some cells recommend a more severe
placement than the cell immediately to its right, but the length of stay may actually be shorter than in the cell immediately to
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 15
the right.
To determine the guidelines’ recommended disposition, locate the cell where the appropriate crime category column and
criminal history row intersect. The proper crime category column is based on: (1) the felony level of the most serious
presenting offense; and (2) the crime category. Addendum B, Crime Categories identies specic categories for offenses.
Crimes categorized as other may not be specically included in Addendum B.
If there are multiple current offenses, refer to Addendum A, Crime Column Severity Listing, to determine which offense is
the most severe and which column should be used. This listing will also indicate which matrix should be used when current
offenses include both sex offenses and non-sex offenses.
In calculating the total guideline time, the crime of conviction that results in the highest guideline time is considered the
leading offense, regardless of rank order in Addendum A or column order on the matrix forms. If the crime of conviction can
be scored on multiple different forms, the form resulting in the highest guideline time should be used.
As indicated earlier, to determine the proper criminal history row, calculate the total criminal history score and use the chart
labeled “Criminal History Score” to identify the row that corresponds with that score.
After having identied the proper crime category column and criminal history row, locate the cell where the column and row
intersect. That cell includes the guidelines’ recommendation regarding sentencing disposition and the typical length of stay
if the individual is sentenced to prison. The level of shading in that box identies the suggested or mandatory sentencing
disposition.
MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT
Utah law mandates imprisonment for all individuals convicted of murder (Utah Code § 76-3-406). Thus, the guidelines indicate
a mandatory imprisonment sentence for murder, regardless of the criminal history row. Murder, Utah Code § 76-5-203, is the
only offense considered in crime category A. Aggravated murder (Utah Code § 76-5-202) is not considered at all on the Adult
Sentencing and Release Guidelines.
Utah law mandates imprisonment for other offenses and mandatory jail for some offenses if the prison sentence is stayed.
However, the forms do not indicate all mandatory incarceration sentences. Doing so would unnecessarily complicate the
matrices when a review of the applicable statute will suce.
TIME ENUMERATED WITHIN INDIVIDUAL CELLS
The length of time enumerated within each cell is the typical length of stay if the individual is imprisoned at the Utah State
Prison. These times apply only if the individual is sentenced to prison and do not apply if the individual is sentenced to jail as
an initial term of probation or to regular probation. If there is only one active sentence, the typical guideline term is determined
by simply identifying the cell where the appropriate crime category column intersects with the criminal history row. The times
located within cells found in the mandatory imprisonment shaded area are not mandatory minimums.
In rare cases, the statutory minimum length of stay in prison may be higher than the typical length of stay provided in an
individual cell. This will happen only when the statutory minimum for a crime is longer than the usual statutory minimum
for that felony level. For example, in the case of of a third degree felony punishable by three to ve years in prison. It is
possible that the typical prison term indicated in the matrix will be less than three years since most third degree felonies are
punishable by zero to ve years in prison. In cases where the statutory minimum exceeds the typical length of stay provided in
the matrix, the typical length of stay should be ignored.
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 16
CONSECUTIVE OR CONCURRENT
When multiple offenses are before the court, “[t]he court shall state on the record and shall indicate in the order of judgment
and commitment: (a) if the sentences imposed are to run concurrently or consecutively to each other; and (b) if the sentences
before the court are to run concurrently or consecutively with any other sentences the defendant is currently serving.” Utah
Code § 76-3-401(1). State statute requires the court to consider the following factors in determining whether sentences shall
run concurrently or consecutively:
• Gravity and circumstances of the offenses
• Number of victims
• History, character, and rehabilitative needs of the defendant.
Utah Code § 76-3-401(2).
“The court shall order that sentences for state offenses run consecutively if the later offense is committed while the
defendant is imprisoned or on parole, unless the court nds and states on the record that consecutive sentencing would be
inappropriate.” Utah Code § 76-3-401(3).
If multiple convictions are ordered to run concurrently, the guidelines add 10% of the recommended length of stay for each of
the shorter sentence to the full recommended length of the longer sentence. For example, consider an individual convicted of
aggravated robbery with a recommended length of stay of 7 years (84 months) and also convicted of aggravated assault with
a recommendation of 20 months. If the court orders the sentences to run concurrently, the guidelines recommend a length of
stay of 86 months (10% of 20 mos = 2 mos + 84 mos = 86 mos).
If multiple convictions are ordered to run consecutively, the guidelines add 40% of the recommended length of stay of the
shorter sentence to the full recommended length of the longer sentence. Using the same example above, if the sentences
were consecutive, the guidelines would recommend a length of stay of 92 months (40% of 20 mos = 8 mos + 84 mos = 92
mos). This same approach applies even if there are three or more sentences being considered.
If there are a string of multiple offenses that are running consecutively or concurrently, add the applicable percentage
of all of the shorter sentences to the longest sentence. For example, consider an individual convicted of 1) aggravated
assault with a recommendation of 24 months, 2) a drug offense with a recommendation of 20 months, and 3) forgery with a
recommendation of 10 months. If the judge orders the sentences to run concurrently, add 10% of both the drug offense and
the forgery to the 24 months for the aggravated assault. The guideline recommendation would total 27 months (10% of 20
mos = 2 mos; 10% of 10 mos = 1 mos; 2 mos + 1 mos = 3 mos; 3 mos + 24 mos = 27 mos).
Occasionally, the longer sentence may not be from the most “severe” offense as indicated by the Crime Column Listing (by
severity) as explained above. In these exceptional cases, use the longest sentence for purposes of calculating concurrent and
consecutive sentences. This is done to preserve consistency in guidelines application.
All guidelines considerations of concurrent and consecutive sentencing should be consistent with the limitations in Utah
Code § 76-3-401.
Sex & Kidnap Offenses Instructions – Form 3
Form 3 should be used for all registerable sex offenses. Specically, offenses to be considered under this portion of the
guidelines include:
• offenses that require registration under Utah Code § 77-41-106;
• custodial sexual relations or misconduct, § 76-5-412;
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 17
• custodial sexual relations or misconduct with a youth receiving state services, § 76-5-413; and
• sexual battery, § 76-9-702.1.
Kidnapping under Utah Code § 76-5-301 is considered a person offense for purposes of the Sentencing and Release
Guidelines. Form 1 should be used to score the crime of kidnapping. For more information see Addendum B.
SEX & KIDNAP OFFENSES CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING INSTRUCTIONS – FORM 3
The Criminal History Scoring for Form 3 is slightly different than that used under Forms 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 for other individuals
convicted of a crime. One additional category exists on the Criminal History Scoring for individuals who commit sexual
offenses: Prior Sex/Kidnap Convictions. This section is based upon the degree of the offense and is specic to those
offenses listed in Addendum C. Other than this category, the Criminal History Score for Form 3 should be scored identical to
Forms 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6. In addition, there are only three criminal history rows on the sex offense matrix. This provides the Board
of Pardons and Parole with more discretion concerning individuals convicted of sexual offenses.
Form 3 reects most of the amended laws mandating imprisonment for certain sex and kidnap offenses in conjunction with
differing indeterminate lengths of stay ranges. Neither Life Without Parole nor a 25 to life sentence are addressed in Form
3, but are fully delineated in statute. In rare cases, Utah law does allow for an alternative sentence to prison for otherwise
mandatory imprisonment sex offenses. However, an arduous list of circumstances must be met before such a deviation is
allowed. These circumstances are enumerated under Utah Code § 76-5-406.5.
GRIEVOUS SEXUAL OFFENSES
Utah law now identies and denes “Grievous Sexual Offenses” as:
Rape-§ 76-5-402
Rape of a Child-§ 76-5-402.1
Object Rape-§ 76-5-402.2
Object Rape of a Child-§ 76-5-402.3
Forcible Sodomy-§ 76-5-403(2)
Sodomy on a Child-§ 76-5-403.1
Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child-§ 76-5-404.1
Aggravated Sexual Assault-§ 76-5-405
Any felony conviction for an attempt to commit one of the above or an offense committed in another state, territory or district
of the U.S. that if committed in Utah would also constitute an offense described above.
Grievous Sexual Offenses are used in the calculation and consideration of enhanced penalties. If during the course of the
trial, the trier of fact nds that the defendant has a prior conviction for a Grievous Sexual Offense, the penalty may be life
without the possibility of parole (“LWOP”).
OFFENSES WITH ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM SENTENCES
Prior law and instruction directed the court in cases that carried the option of three alternative minimum sentences of 6, 10
or 15 to life to sentence to the middle severity of 10 to life. If the trier of fact found sucient aggravating circumstances
they could enhance the sentence to 15 to life. If the trier of fact found sucient mitigating circumstances they could reduce
the sentence to 6 to life. The law now instructs the court to order 15 to life. If the court nds that it is in the best interest
of justice and documents on the record the justication, it can reduce the sentence to 10 to life or 6 to life. The offenses to
which these provisions apply are:
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 18
Child Kidnapping-§ 76-5-301.1
Aggravated Kidnapping-§ 76-5-302
Rape of a Child-§ 76-5-402.1
Object Rape of a Child-§ 76-5-402.3
Sodomy on a Child-§ 76-5-403.1
Aggravated Sexual Abuse of a Child-§ 76-5-404.1
Aggravated Sexual Assault-§ 76-5-405
The following sexual offenses are rst degree felonies and carry a 5 years to life sentence:
Rape-§ 76-5-402
Object Rape-§ 76-5-402.2
Forcible Sodomy-§ 76-5-403
However, if the trier of fact nds that during the course of the commission of the crime the defendant caused serious bodily
injury to another (not necessarily the victim), the court may sentence the defendant to a term of 15 years to life.
Additionally, if the court nds that it is in the interest of justice and states the reasons for this nding on the record, the court
may reduce the sentence to 10 years to life or 6 years to life.
Forcible Sexual Abuse Utah Code § 76-5-404 is a second degree felony with a 1 to 15 year sentence. If the trier of fact nds
that during the commission of the crime the defendant caused serious bodily injury, the crime is a rst degree felony and the
court may sentence the defendant to a term of 15 years to life. If it is found that it is in the interest of justice and the court
states the reasons for this nding on the record, the court may reduce the sentence to 10 years to life or 6 years to life.
CRIMES FOR WHICH PROBATION, SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE, LOWER CATEGORY OF OFFENSE, OR
HOSPITALIZATION MAY NOT BE GRANTED UTAH CODE § 76-3-406
This category includes:
Rape-§ 76-5-402
Object Rape-§ 76-5-402.2
Forcible Sodomy-§ 76-5-403; and
Forcible Sexual Abuse-§ 76-5-404
Enticing a Minor over the Internet (with prior sex offense conviction) - § 76-4-401
UTAH’S “JESSICA’S LAW” 25 YEARS TO LIFE
If the current conviction is for one or more of the following three sex offenses that qualify as “Jessica’s Law,” the required
mandatory sentence is imprisonment of 25 years to life without the possibility of the court suspending or reducing the
sentence in consideration of mitigating circumstances.
Rape of a Child-§ 76-5-402.1
Object Rape of a Child-§ 76-5-402.3
Sodomy on a Child-§ 76-5-403.1
Because of the mandatory nature of this sanction, these crimes are not listed on Form 3 Sex & Kidnap Offense Matrix.
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 19
A conviction for an Attempt to Commit Utah Code § 76-4-102 or Solicitation to Commit Utah Code § 76-4-204 any of the above
three offenses is punishable as a 1st Degree Felony under column A and a minimum sentence of 15 years to life. If the court
nds that a lesser sentence is in the interests of justice and states the reasons for this nding on the record it may reduce the
sentence to 10 years to life, 6 years to life, or 3 years to life.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD - SPECIAL AGGRAVATION AND MITIGATION INSTRUCTIONS
During the 2022 Legislative Session, Senate Bill 167 instructed the Sentencing Commission to review its guidelines as they
apply to Sexual Exploitation of a Minor or Aggravated Sexual Exploitation of a Minor offenses (Utah Code § 76-5b-201; 76-5b-
201.1(3)(b) and (c)) and provide specic instructions for how to consider aggravating and mitigating factors in these cases.
The Sentencing Commission identied four special aggravating factors that increase the seriousness of this offense and may
suggest greater risk to reoffend. Those aggravating factors are:
• Possession of sexual abuse imagery depicting infant and toddler victims
• Any contact or attempted contact with a victim (including a law enforcement ocer posing as a victim)
• Offense behavior, including possession or distribution of images, continued for over two years;
• Possession of over 10,000 images
If any one of those aggravating factors is identied in the present offense, the presentence investigator shall specically
list them in the report and indicate to the sentencing or release authority that special aggravation is present. If special
aggravation is present, the presentence investigator, sentencing, or release authority should consider an upward deviation.
A prison sentence should be considered in cases with special aggravation, even if the matrix box is shaded for probation.
Additionally, the Sentencing Commission recognized that younger individuals possessing imagery of victims closer to their
peer age group may not present the same level of risk to reoffend as older individuals. Therefore, it is a special mitigating
factor if the individual was younger than 25 at the time of the offense and only possessed images of victims 14 years or older
or post-pubescent. In those cases, the presentence investigator must speccically note that special mitigation is present.
The presentence investigator, sentencing, or release authority should consider deviating downward.
Special aggravation and mitigation factors in this section may be considered along with other aggravating and mitigating
factors not listed here, using the same processes described in the instructions for Form 7.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD - SPECIAL TIME CALCULATION INSTRUCTIONS
As part of its analysis under SB 167, the Sentencing Commission also noticed great disparity in sentencing outcomes for this
offense, even when the underlying conduct was similar. Sentencing data revealed that the main factor driving differences in
prison terms in these cases was not the behavior or risk of the individual, but the number of charges of conviction. Because
most individuals charged with this offense possess multiple images--each one potentially giving rise to a charge--the number
of charges is largely a product of prosecutorial discretion. Presented with the same facts, one prosecutor may choose to
charge 100 offenses while another may choose to charge only 10 offenses.
While the Sentencing Commission recognizes and values the discretion afforded to each stakeholder in the justice system,
rigid application of typical time calculation practices in this category creates unwarranted disparity. To mitigate this, the
Sentencing Commission recommends that the Board of Pardons and Parole only apply its typical guideline calculation
practices (adding 10% to length of stay for each concurrent offense and 40% for each consecutive offense) to the rst ve
offenses of conviction for Sexual Exploitation of a Child. After the rst ve offenses, each additional offense of conviction
should be calculated as if they were running concurrently with the other offenses (adding 10% to the length of stay).
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 20
Financial Offense with Serious Loss Matrix Instructions - Form 4
Form 4 was added to the Utah Adult Sentencing and Release Guidelines in 2022, in response to both public comment and
ongoing internal discussions reecting the need for sentencing policy to account for the more serious nature of Financial
Offenses with substantial nancial loss amounts. Although the prior guidelines included substantial nancial loss as an
aggravating factor, the matrices themselves did not expressly suggest more substantial sentences for offenses with serious
nancial losses.
To better account for the impact of serious nancial crimes in Utah, all of the cells on Form 4 are shaded for imprisonment,
with escalating prison terms based on increased criminal history scores or higher nancial loss thresholds. Sentencing
Commission data suggests Form 4 also more accurately reects average lengths of stay for offenders in these categories
who were sentenced to prison prior to the creation of Form 4.
APPLYING FORM 4
Form 4 applies to certain 2nd Degree Felony Financial Offenses (listed in Addendum B) where nancial loss (pecuniary
damage) to the victim(s) exceeds $50,000.
Form 4 does not apply to 3rd degree felony or misdemeanor offenses, nancial offenses with loss amounts that do not
exceed $50,000, or crimes with damages exceeding $50,000 that are not among the listed nancial offenses in Addendum
B. Form 4 also does not include 1st degree felony offenses, because there are no 1st degree felony offenses that are purely
nancial (and because the 1st degree felony recommendations on Form 1 are likely sucient to capture any 1st degree
nancial offense that may somehow arise). Finally, Form 4 should not be applied when the pecuniary damage at issue was
suffered by corporate entities such as insurance companies.
1
For offenses where Form 4 does not apply, the standard
applicable form(s) should be used.
There may be circumstances where an offense would qualify for scoring under both Form 4 and another form. In those
circumstances, the form reecting the higher length of stay calculation should be used.
DETERMINING THE LOSS AMOUNT
The Sentencing Commission’s goal is that Form 4 be used when the out-of-pocket loss to the victim(s) exceeds $50,000.
However, because loss amounts may be calculated differently at different stages of criminal proceedings, and different
parties may claim different loss gures, the Commission has determined that the clearest way to determine the loss amount
is to rely on a clear statement of pecuniary damages for restitution purposes, reected in the sentence, judgment and
commitment order (J&C)
2
. Therefore, Form 4 should only be applied when the J&C indicates pecuniary damages or restitution
owed from an offense of conviction exceeds $50,000. See Utah Code 77-38b-102.
Supervising agencies preparing presentence investigation reports (PSI’s) before a J&C is nalized should apply this form
where the evidence submitted by the parties clearly indicates a loss amount that exceeds the thresholds. If the state is
recommending a sentence under Form 4, it is incumbent on the prosecutor to provide clear evidence of the loss amount to the
supervising agency prior to sentencing. Stipulations by the parties may also help determine application of Form 4.
If new evidence emerges or restitution is paid before sentencing, the recommended sentence should be recalculated based
on the reduced amount, using a lower threshold category on Form 4 or another Form as applicable.
1 Although nancial loss to corporate entities is real and has its own impact on the community, the Commission determined the other applicable forms appropriately
account for the impact of crimes involving losses to corporate entities..
2 If a court issues a probation sentence, a Judgment and Order of Probation may be used in the same manner as a J&C for purposes of applying Form 4 at other stages of
the sentencing process.
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 21
As with the other forms, Form 4 applies to an offense of conviction, on a per-count basis. Therefore, the nancial loss
threshold should be calculated based on an offense of conviction, not aggregated across several counts.
RESTITUTION PAID BEFORE SENTENCING
In order to incentivize timely payment of restitution, any restitution paid to a victim before the sentencing date should be
subtracted from the nancial loss calculation. This should be reected in the J&C, so that the new loss amount will be used
for sentencing guideline calculations by the supervising agency and/or the Board of Pardons and Parole. If the restitution
payment results in a loss amount that falls below a threshold, the lower-tiered column reecting the reduced loss amount
should be used. If restitution payments result in a loss amount that falls below $50,000, the offense should be scored, on
another applicable form.
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING - FORM 4
Criminal history scoring on Form 4 works the same as on Form 1. The criminal history categories, however, are slightly
different. There are only three criminal history categories instead of ve, and it takes fewer points to arrive at the highest
category. This difference is intended to account for the fact that the impact of even a small number of serious nancial
offenses will often be much greater than several less serious offenses on Form 1.
AGGRAVATING AND MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
As with the other Forms, the calculation in Form 4 is only the beginning of the sentencing analysis. Aggravating and
mitigating circumstances (Form 7) should also be considered, and sentencing authorities maintain their discretion to deviate
from guideline recommendations. Because serious nancial loss is a prerequisite for applying Form 4, substantial monetary
loss to the victim(s) should not be considered as a separate aggravating factor for an offense scored on Form 4, when
applying Form 7. Substantial monetary loss may be considered as an aggravating factor by the Board of Pardons and Parole if
the pecuniary damage or restitution amount is not stated on the J&C or the offense is not scored on Form 4.
Jail as a Condition of Felony Probation Matrix Instructions – Form 5
Form 5, Jail as a Condition of Felony Probation Matrix, should only be used to determine jail time as part of a probation
sentence, either because an earlier behavior management form’s shading directed to “Jail as a Condition of Probation” or
because jail with probation is being considered as a deviation from the recommendation of an earlier form. Columns from
earlier forms that require Mandatory Imprisonment are not included on Form 5.
This form should not be used to calculate jail time to close a case, but only to calculate jail time as a condition of probation.
All cells: The number of days in the individual cells includes the mid-point as the recommended time period at the top
and the range available in parentheses below. Neither the number of days, nor the shading of cells, should be considered
mandatory. The maximum should not be presumed to be the starting point in formulating a recommendation to the court.
Completed risk and needs assessment(s), scores from validated tool(s), compliance with court orders prior to sentencing,
aggravating and mitigating factors on Form 7, as well as the impact of incarceration upon risk to re-offend should all
be considered in determining the nal recommendation to the court at sentencing. The use of the jail time for behavior
modication purposes (risk reduction as opposed to risk management) is addressed in Structured Decision Making Tool 5.
Misdemeanor Matrix Instructions - Form 6
Form 6 - Misdemeanor Matrix is for scoring misdemeanor offenses, other than the Class A Misdemeanor offenses that
appear on Forms 1 and 3. Form 6 is not solely intended for Justice Courts, but for any court sentencing misdemeanor
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 22
offenses. Criminal History Scoring for Form 6 is the same as Criminal History Scoring for Form 1, which is intended to provide
greater consistency in Criminal History Scoring between individuals committing felony and misdemeanor offenses statewide.
Form 6 also reects the ranking of severity of misdemeanor offenses, decreasing from left to right.
“Class B Person Crime” includes domestic violence offenses involving spouses and/or intimate partners. “Class B DV Other”
includes domestic violence offenses involving other cohabitants, property offenses, and other non-person crimes.
The Sentencing Commission recommends that the court impose the ne appropriate for the most serious offense for which
the defendant is convicted. If there are multiple counts, and the court believes a more serious nancial penalty is appropriate,
the Commission recommends the court impose at most 10% of the recommended nes for each additional count. The
Commission does not recommend the imposition of any suspended amount of ne, as violations should be addressed with
behavior modication sanctions as identied in Structured Decision-Making Tool 5, not nancial ones. The Commission
encourages courts to allow defendants credits or offsets against ordered nes for completed counseling and other achieved
goals (UA’s, etc.).
Generally, the Commission recommends that misdemeanor courts faced with sentencing a defendant who is already being
supervised for a more serious offense (whether that be recently sentenced, or an earlier grant of probation) consider allowing
that grant of probation to provide the programming. However, given the specic safety concerns for identiable victim(s)
in person crimes such as domestic violence offenses, the Commission recognizes the appropriateness of probation terms
tailored by each court to maximize victim safety. The protection of victim(s) in such cases is of prime importance. Consider
recommendations for sentencing protective orders, but recognize that protective orders issued by civil courts are broader and
offer permanent protections.
Jail days indicated should not be considered “mandatory minimums” and should not be presumed to ensure the safety
of a particular victim. The Commission recognizes that courts must weigh many factors in each case, balancing the core
principles of sentencing as outlined previously.
Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances Instructions – Form 7
Forms 1-6 are only a starting point to help structure decision-making and promote consistency in sentencing. They are not a
substitute for a structured decision-making process that accounts for all of the unique factors presented by each case. Form
7 lays out a non-exhaustive list of aggravating and mitigating factors that may suggest deviations from the typical sentence.
Other reasons, as they occur, can be specied.
Aggravating and mitigating factors should be documented whether or not the guideline sentence is recommended.
Reasons should always be specied when the guideline sentence is not recommended. These aggravating and mitigating
circumstances should be considered for Forms 1 - 6. Presentence investigators have limited access to facts that could
support aggravating or mitigating factors. Therefore, defense counsel and prosecutors are strongly urged to make any
relevant aggravating or mitigating factors known to the sentencing authority before sentencing.
In considering all aggravating and mitigating factors in a particular case, the number of each should not merely be added up
or otherwise mechanically applied in the balancing process. Rather, the totality of the mitigating factors should be compared
against the totality of the aggravating factors. Any one mitigating factor, standing alone, could outweigh some or all of the
aggravating circumstances in the case. On the other hand, one aggravating factor, standing alone, could outweigh some or all
of the mitigating circumstances in the case.
Do not include an aggravating factor if: (1) it is already included as an element of the offense (do not double count) or (2) it
is an element of the offense but has not been pled to or otherwise proven beyond a reasonable doubt as required by statute
and/or case law.
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 23
Some aggravating and mitigating factors should be used with caution. They include:
(1) Factors that have already been considered in a risk assessment. This could result in an unintentional double counting.
(2) Factors that reect socio-economic status more than risk. An individual’s relative abundance of resources or a lack of
resources including access to treatment, nancial stability, or ability to pay nes and fees, should not unduly affect the
individual’s sentence.
(3) Factors dealing specically with sex offenses that may not have a statistical correlation with increased risk to re-offend.
These factors could include:
- Neglect or abuse during childhood
- Sexual abuse during childhood
In line with trauma-informed practices, presentence investigation reports and low-risk memos may include results from an
Adverse Childhood Experiences questionnaire (ACEs). The ACEs questionnaire is helpful in understanding and responding to
an individual’s circumstances and needs. The ACEs questionnaire, however, is not validated for risk assessment and should
not be used as an aggravating factor. If factors in an ACEs questionnaire overlap with factors considered in a validated risk
assessment, using the ACEs questionnaire as an aggravating factor would double count what has already been presented
through the risk assessment.
BIAS AS A MITIGATING FACTOR
Racial, ethnic, or other biases in a specic case, whether conscious or unconscious, may be a mitigating factor at sentencing.
SPECIAL AGGRAVTION AND MITIGATION: SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF A MINOR – FORM 7A
See Form 3 instructions (p. 19).
PRESENTENCE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Presentence Investigator should ensure that Presentence Reports are fully completed, including:
• Guidelines Recommendations
The guideline sentence without regard to aggravating or mitigating circumstances should be included in the presentence
report.
• AP&P Recommendations
The recommendation of Adult Probation and Parole should be included in the presentence report.
• Reason for Departure
Any reasons for departure should be documented by the presentence investigator in every case in which the guideline
recommendation is not followed.
According to Utah Admin. R671-205-1, time incarcerated under the following circumstances is counted as time served against
the maximum sentence: (1) a conviction is set aside and there is a subsequent commitment for the same criminal conduct;
(2) a commitment is made to the Utah State Hospital pursuant to a guilty and mentally ill conviction; (3) a commitment is
made to the Utah State Hospital or comparable non-prison psychiatric facility for competency determination or restoration;
(4) time is spent in custody outside the State of Utah based solely on the Utah warrant; (5) the Board of Pardons and Parole
deems such credit just under the circumstances; or (6) credit is otherwise required by law.
Behavior Management Form Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 24
EXAMPLE BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT FORM TREE
The following ctional example of a possible presumed sentence decision tree represents an effort to help guideline
users familiarize themselves with the process undertaken by presentence investigators and judges. A sentencing decision
reects considerations regarding criminal history and charge categories that are evaluated through a series of steps with
corresponding rules. In the example, there are a couple details that highlight how these rules affect a potential presumed
sentence. However, the example represents a relatively normal decision-making course without sentencing enhancements or
many other potential sentencing departures. In any attempt to determine a real presumed sentence, be sure to consult with
attorneys or to direct your questions to experienced sentencing guideline users or the Utah Sentencing Commission itself.
SCENARIO OVERVIEW
Carl Magnusson - 23 year-old man arrested after a pawn shop owner reports he has suspicions that the set of auto-mechanic
tools valued at $6,000 Magnusson attempted to sell were stolen.
During the course of investigation, detectives discover that Magnusson’s co-worker reports the theft of the same auto me-
chanic tools from his personal vehicle parked on a public street outside his place of business. Magnusson is charged with
2nd Degree Felony theft, and Class A Misdemeanor burglary of a vehicle.
CRIMINAL HISTORY
Magnusson has three class A misdemeanor thefts as an adult, a conviction for one prior felony person offense and a class A
misdemeanor stalking charge, and two felony theft charges from before he was 18.
The diagram on the following page is how the sentencing authority should use the behavior management forms for this
offense.
Behavior Management - Sample Form Tree
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 25
2nd Degree Felony, Other Category
Determine most serious crime
and crime category
10 Points = Criminal History Row III
MOST SERIOUS CHARGE
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
STEP 5
STEP 6
FORM 1 (abbreviated matrix)
FORM 4 (abbreviated matrix)
STEP 1
Determining The Criminal History
2nd Degree Felony, Other Category
+ 2 pts for prior felony conviction
+ 2 pts for 3 misdemeanor thefts
+ 4 pts for prior felony person offense*
+ 2 pts for juvenile felony theft
* In prior person convictions category, Magnusson
has a felony and a misdemeanor stalking
charge from one prior conviction. Count the 4
points for the felony in this category. The felony
person offense also counts as a prior felony
conviction in the rst section.
Determine most serious crime
and crime category
Find sentencing box for all charged
crimes based on crime category and
criminal history score
Determine whether Presumed
Imprisonment or Jail as an Initial
Condition of Probation or Presumed
Probation
Calculate Presumed Sentence and
Time and Level of Incarceration and
Supervision.
As a precaution, consider whether mitigating or aggravating conditions (See Forms 7 and 7A) could lead to departures from Presumed Sentence. If, for example, the judge determines
that aggravating circumstances justify a departure, Magnusson could be sentenced to a prison term based on the prison-time box on Form 1. In this case, the presumed sentence
would amount to 16 months of prison time.
10 Points = Criminal History Row III
TOTAL SCORE RANGES CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
MOST SERIOUS CHARGE SECONDARY CHARGE
STEP 2
STEP 3
STEP 4
STEP 5
STEP 6
Determine felony as “other” category (Not a “possession” or
“person” crime) with help of Sentencing Guidelines Addendum
B Crime categories.
Category and
history lead to box III
E on Form 1 - General
Matrix
Box is shaded Jail
as a Condition
of Probation.
For presumptive
sentence, disregard
listed prison months
and move to Form 5.
Box is shaded Presumptive Probation.
Determine if Consecutive Sentence
or Concurrent Sentence.
Use same criminal history score and crime category to
nd box the indicates presumptive jail time in form 5.
Total range is 0-180 jail days with 90 days as the median
incarceration time as presumed sentence in Form 1.
For Consecutive Sentence,
add 40% of presumed
sentence to the presumed
sentence for the more
serious charge. If 45 days
is the presumed median
sentence that means the
consecutive sentence should
presume 18 additional days of
incarceration.
For Concurrent Sentence,
add 10% of presumed
sentence to the presumed
sentence for the more
serious charge. If 45 days is
presumed median sentence
that means concurrent
sentence should assume
5 additional days of
incarceration.
Category and
history lead to box
III C on Form 6 -
Misdemeanor Matrix
Class A misdemeanor, Other category
FORM 1 (abbreviated matrix) FORM 5 (abbreviated matrix)
FORM 5 (abbreviated matrix)
Behavior Management - Sample Form Tree
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 26
1st Degree
Person
A
1st Degree
Other
B
2nd Degree
Person
C
3rd Degree
Person
D
2nd Other
Specic 3rds
E
2nd Poss
3rd Other
F
3rd Poss
Class A**
G
V
120 MOS 84 MOS 54 MOS 32 MOS 26 MOS 16 MOS 12 MOS
IV
108 MOS 78 MOS 42 MOS 26 MOS 20 MOS 14 MOS 10 MOS
III
96 MOS 72 MOS 30 MOS 20 MOS 16 MOS 12 MOS 8 MOS
II
84 MOS 66 MOS 24 MOS 16 MOS 14 MOS 10 MOS 6 MOS
I
72 MOS 60 MOS 18 MOS 14 MOS 12 MOS 8 MOS 4 MOS
Risk Management Forms
Form 1 – General Matrix
* A problem-solving court is a specialized court designated by the Utah Administrative Oce of the Court. Every problem-solving court or RIM violation/sanction should not
be counted as a revocation. An Order to Show Cause with revocation and actual removal from the problem-solving court is required in order to count as prior revocation of
supervised probation. An Order to Show Cause with revocation and actual removal is required to count current offense on supervision.
**Time periods only apply to Class A offenses sentenced to prison under § 76-3-208(1)(b). Form 6 applies to sentencing of misdemeanor offenses under § 76-3-208 (1)(c).
Consecutive Enhancements (served one after another): 40% of the shorter sentence added to the full length of the longer sentence.
Concurrent Enhancements (served at the same time): 10% of the shorter sentence added to full length of the longer sentence.
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
ACTIVE CONVICTIONS (MOST SERIOUS FIRST) CRIME CATEGORY TIME
TOTAL
TOTAL SCORE RANGES CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
PRIOR CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
SUPERVISION HISTORY
(Adult only – Federal, AP&P,
private, county, problem
solving court removal*)
MOST RECENT POST-CONVICTION CRIME-FREE GAP
Count from date of sentencing or entry of plea in abeyance
(if no prison) or date of release from prison. Gap ends at
new offense date. (exclude infr, class C, class B trac and
minor regulatory offenses per § 77-40-102(10))
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS WITHIN PAST 10
YEARS (Offenses that would have been felonies if
committed by adult) (3 class a adjud. = 1 Felony)
PRIOR PERSON OR FIREARM CONVICTIONS
(Adult or juvenile)
One
Two
Three
Four or more
One or two
Three to ve
Six or more
Prior revocation
Current offense
on supervision
Misdemeanor person offense (AD.B)
Felony rearm offense (76-10-5)
Felony person offense (AD.B)
Homicide offense (76-5-2)
One
Two to four
Five or more
Three to four years
Five to six years
Seven to nine years
Ten years or more
V
IV
III
II
I
2
4
6
8
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
4
6
1
2
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
16+
12 – 15
8 – 11
4 – 7
0 – 3
Only score the single highest point option within a given category. Do not check multiple scores in a single
category and then add them. Any negative points which are deducted for the most recent post conviction
crime-free gap period may not reduce the total score below 0.
SCORER’S NAME
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING
These guidelines do not create any rights or expectations. Matrix time frames refer to imprisonment only. Refer to the categorization of offenses with the exception of
“Specic 3rds,” which are the 3rd Degree Offenses of: DUI, Possession of Firearm by Restricted Person, and Failure to Respond to Ocer’s Signal to Stop.
CRIME CATEGORY
DATE SCORED
TOTAL SCORE
IMPRISONMENT
PRESUMPTIVE PROBATION
JAIL AS CONDITION OF PROBATION
Behavior Management Form 1 - General Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 27
1st Degree
Aggravated
Murder
A
1st Degree
Murder
B
Attempted
Aggravated
Murder*
C
1st Degree
Death
D
2nd Degree
Death
E
2nd Degree
Auto Homicide
F
3rd Degree
Death**
G
V
444 MOS 288 MOS 240 MOS 180 MOS 156 MOS 84 MOS 48 MOS
IV
408 MOS 276 MOS 228 MOS 168 MOS 144 MOS 72 MOS 42 MOS
III
372 MOS 264 MOS 216 MOS 156 MOS 132 MOS 60 MOS 36 MOS
II
336 MOS 252 MOS 204 MOS 144 MOS 120 MOS 48 MOS 30 MOS
I
300 MOS 240 MOS 192 MOS 132 MOS 108 MOS 36 MOS 24 MOS
MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT
JAIL AS COND.
IMPRISONMENT
Form 2 – Homicide/Death
Offense Matrix
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
ACTIVE CONVICTIONS (MOST SERIOUS FIRST) CRIME CATEGORY TIME
TOTAL
TOTAL SCORE RANGES CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
PRIOR CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
CONVICTIONS (Separate adult
case numbers)
SUPERVISION HISTORY
(Adult only – Federal, AP&P,
private, county, problem solving
court removal*)
MOST RECENT POST-CONVICTION CRIME-FREE
GAP Count from date of sentencing or entry of
plea in abeyance (if no prison) or date of release
from prison. Gap ends at new offense date.
(Exclude infr, class C, class B trac and minor
regulatory offenses per § 77-40-102(10))
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS WITHIN PAST
10 YEARS (Offenses that would have been felonies
if committed by adult) (3 class A adjud. = 1 Felony)
PRIOR PERSON OR FIREARM CONVICTIONS
(Adult or juvenile)
One
Two
Three
Four or more
One or two
Three to ve
Six or more
Prior revocation
Current offense
on supervision
Misdemeanor person offense (AD.B)
Felony rearm offense (76-10-5)
Felony person offense (AD.B)
Homicide offense (76-5-2)
One
Two to four
Five or more
Three to four years
Five to six years
Seven to nine years
Ten years or more
V
IV
III
II
I
2
4
6
8
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
4
6
1
2
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
16+
12 – 15
8 – 11
4 – 7
0 – 3
These are guidelines only. They do not create any right or expectation on behalf of the individual. Matrix
time frames refer to imprisonment only. Refer to the categorization of offenses. Guidelines do not apply to
sentences of death. Guidelines in effect at the time of original sentencing are to be used.
SCORER’S NAME
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING
Statutes with more specic sentence lengths preempt guideline recommendations. The Homicide/Death Matrix includes:
Aggravated Murder, Murder, Attempted Aggravated Murder, Manslaughter, Child Abuse Homicide, Homicide by Assault, Negligent Homicide, Automobile Homicide, and other
offenses listed in Addendum B.
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE MATRIX
DATE SCORED
*Attempted Aggravated Murder can have a wide range of prison minimums (5, 6, or 15 years) depending on whether it involves serious bodily injury and whether mitigating factors
are found. The Board of Pardons & Parole will take into consideration the minimum applicable prison term as well as the guideline range in Column C. **A conviction for a ‘Class A
Death’ with commitment to the Utah State Prison is a 12-month guideline recommended sentence.
Consecutive Enhancements (served one after another): 40% of the shorter sentence added to the full length of the longer sentence.
Concurrent Enhancements (served at the same time): 10% of the shorter sentence added to full length of the longer sentence.
TOTAL SCORE
Behavior Management Form 2 - Homicide Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 28
1st Degree
Mandatory
Prison (15+)
A
1st Degree
Mandatory
Prison (10+)
B
1st Degree
Mandatory
Prison (6+)
C
1st Degree
Mandatory
Prison (5+)
D
1st Degree
Mandatory
Prison (3+)
E
1st
Degree
(5+)
F
1st
Degree***
(3+)
G
2nd
Degree***
(1-15)
H
3rd
Degree***
(0-5)
I
Class A
Misd.
(0-1)
J
III
252 MOS 168 MOS 100 MOS 75 MOS 75 MOS 75 MOS 75 MOS 64 MOS 42 MOS 12 MOS
II
216 MOS 144 MOS 90 MOS 66 MOS 64 MOS 66 MOS 62 MOS 48 MOS 36 MOS 10 MOS
I
192 MOS 132 MOS 80 MOS 60 MOS 42 MOS 60 MOS 42 MOS 40 MOS 32 MOS 8 MOS
Form 3 – Sex & Kidnap Offense Matrix
* A problem-solving court is a specialized court designated by the Utah Administrative Oce of the Court. An Order to Show Cause with revocation and actual removal
from the problem-solving court is required in order to count as prior revocation of supervised probation or current offense on supervision.
**Time periods only apply to Class A offenses sentenced to prison under § 76-3-208(1)(b). Form 6 applies to sentencing of misdemeanor offenses under § 76-3-208
(1)(c).
*** When scoring Sexual Exploitation of a Child offenses under this section, refer to special instructions for aggravation, mitigation, and time calculation.
Consecutive Enhancements (served one after another): 40% of the shorter sentence added to the full length of the longer sentence.***
Concurrent Enhancements (served at the same time): 10% of the shorter sentence added to full length of the longer sentence.***
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
ACTIVE CONVICTIONS (MOST SERIOUS FIRST) CRIME CATEGORY TIME
TOTAL
TOTAL SCORE RANGES CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
PRIOR CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
SUPERVISION HISTORY (Adult
only – Federal, AP&P, private, county,
problem solving court removal*)
DEGREE OF PRIOR SEX/KIDNAP
CONVICTION (offenses listed in
addendum C)
MOST RECENT POST-CONVICTION CRIME-FREE
GAP Count from date of sentencing or entry of
plea in abeyance (if no prison) or date of release
from prison. Gap ends at new offense date.
(exclude infr, class C, class B trac and minor
regulatory offenses per § 77-40-102(10))
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS WITHIN PAST 10
YEARS (Offenses that would have been felonies if
committed by adult) (3 class A adjud. = 1 Felony)
PRIOR PERSON OR FIREARM CONVICTIONS
(Adult or juvenile)
One
Two
Three
Four or more
One or two
Three to ve
Six or more
Prior revocation
Current offense
on supervision
Misd. or 3rd degree
1st or 2nd degree
Misdemeanor person offense (AD.B)
Felony rearm offense (76-10-5)
Felony person offense (AD.B)
Homicide offense (76-5-2)
One
Two to four
Five or more
Three to four years
Five to six years
Seven to nine years
Ten years or more
III
II
I
2
4
6
8
1
2
3
2
3
2
4
2
2
4
6
1
2
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
7 or more
4 – 6
0 – 3
SCORER’S NAME
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING
CRIME CATEGORY & PRISON MATRIX
DATE SCORED
TOTAL SCORE
JAIL AS AN INITIAL COND. OF PROBATION
These are guidelines only. They do not create any right or expectation on
behalf of the individual convicted of a crime. Matrix time frames refer to
imprisonment only. Refer to the categorization of offenses.
MANDATORY IMPRISONMENT
IMPRISONMENT
Behavior Management Form 3 - Sex & Kidnap Offense Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 29
2nd Degree -
> $1 Million
nancial loss
2nd Degree
- $200,000
- $999,999
nancial loss
2nd Degree
- $50,000
- $199,999
nancial
loss
III
96 mos 72 mos 40 mos
II
84 mos 60 mos 32 mos
I
72 mos 48 mos 24 mos
Form 4 – Financial Offense with Serious Loss Matrix
*Consecutive Enhancements (served one after another): 40% of the shorter sentence added to the full length of the longer sentence.
*Concurrent Enhancements (served at the same time): 10% of the shorter sentence added to full length of the longer sentence.
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
ACTIVE CONVICTIONS (MOST SERIOUS FIRST) CRIME CATEGORY TIME
TOTAL
TOTAL SCORE RANGES CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
PRIOR CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
SUPERVISION HISTORY (Adult
only – Federal, AP&P, private, county,
problem solving court removal*)
MOST RECENT POST-CONVICTION CRIME-FREE
GAP Count from date of sentencing or entry of
plea in abeyance (if no prison) or date of release
from prison. Gap ends at new offense date.
(exclude infr, class C, class B trac and minor
regulatory offenses per § 77-40-102(10))
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS WITHIN PAST 10
YEARS (Offenses that would have been felonies if
committed by adult) (3 class A adjud. = 1 Felony)
PRIOR PERSON OR FIREARM CONVICTIONS
(Adult or juvenile)
One
Two
Three
Four or more
One or two
Three to ve
Six or more
Prior revocation
Current offense
on supervision
Misdemeanor person offense (AD.B)
Felony rearm offense (76-10-5)
Felony person offense (AD.B)
Homicide offense (76-5-2)
One
Two to four
Five or more
Three to four years
Five to six years
Seven to nine years
Ten years or more
III
II
I
2
4
6
8
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
4
6
1
2
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
12 or more
6 - 11
0 – 5
SCORER’S NAME
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING
CRIME CATEGORY & PRISON MATRIX
DATE SCORED
TOTAL SCORE
This matrix applies to specic nancial offenses (See Application notes and Addendum B) where a victim sustained over
$50,000 in nancial loss. Due to the serious nature of these offenses, the entire matrix is shaded for a presumptive prison
sentence. Refer to the Application Notes and Instructions for specic direction on how to apply this form. If this matrix does
not apply, use Form 1 or another appropriate form.
IMPRISONMENT
Application Notes
1) Form 4 applies to certain 2nd Degree Felony nancial offenses listed in Addendum B where
nancial loss (pecuniary damage) to the victim(s) exceed the matrix thresholds. Form 4 does
not apply to 1st felony, 3rd degree felony, or misdemeanor offenses; nancial offenses with loss
amounts that do not exceed the thresholds; or offenses with damages above the thresholds that
are not among the listed nancial offenses. For those offenses, the standard applicable forms
should be used.
2) Because loss may be calculated differently at different stages of criminal proceedings, Form
4 should only be applied when the sentence, judgment and commitment record (J&C) reects
damage to a victim for a crime of conviction that exceeds the thresholds. Restitution paid prior to
sentencing should be subtracted from the loss amount and reected on the J&C.
3) Supervising agencies preparing presentence investigation reports (PSI’s) prior to nalization
of a J&C should apply this form where the evidence submitted by the parties clearly indicates
a loss amount exceeding the thresholds. If new evidence emerges or restitution is paid before
sentencing that results in reduced pecuniary damages below the thresholds, the recommended
sentence should be recalculated based on the reduced amount, using a lower threshold category
or another Form as applicable.
Behavior Management Form 4 - Financial Offense with Serious Loss Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 30
Form 5 – Jail as Initial Condition of Probation of Felony Probation Matrices
This form should only be used to determine jail time as part of a probation sentence, either because an earlier behavior management form directed
to “Jail as Condition of Probation” or because jail is being considered as a deviation from the sentence recommended by an earlier form. This form
should not be used to calculate jail time-to-close a case. As with any sentence, the purposes of incarceration should be carefully considered, and incarceration should be
paired with risk reduction programming. The mid-point is listed above the time range available is listed as an initial period of connement in the county jail. All numbers
listed are in days, not months. Jail days listed should not be considered mandatory sentences.
GENERAL MATRIX
*While the General Matrix in Form 1 was revised to include a category of specic 3rd degree felonies, this should not be viewed as changing the categorization in Form 5.
Therefore, what is now categorized as a “Specic 3rd” in Form 1, i.e., DUI, Possession of Firearm by Restricted Person, and Failure to Respond to Ocer’s Signal to Stop,
should still be categorized as a “3rd Other” in Form 5.
**Form 5 only applies to sex offenses where the prison sentence has been suspended. Form 6 applies to sentencing of misdemeanor offenses under § 76-3-208 (1)(c).
1st 2nd 3rd
III
180
(0-365)
160
(0-320)
90
(0-180)
II
180
(0-365)
125
(0-250)
90
(0-180)
I
160
(0-320)
105
(0-210)
60
(0-120)
SEX & KIDNAP OFFENSE MATRIX (To be used with Form 3)
CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
2nd
Death
1st
Person
3rd
Death
1st
Other
2nd
Person
3rd
Person
2nd
Other
2nd
Poss.
3rd
Other*
3rd
Poss.
V
180
(0-365)
180
(0-365)
180
(0-365)
180
(0-365)
180
(0-365)
150
(0-300)
150
(0-300)
150
(0-300)
135
(0-270)
75
(0-150)
IV
180
(0-365)
180
(0-365)
160
(0-320)
160
(0-320)
160
(0-320)
150
(0-300)
150
(0-300)
135
(0-270)
105
(0-210)
60
(0-120)
III
180
(0-365)
150
(0-300)
135
(0-270)
135
(0-270)
135
(0-270)
90
(0-180)
90
(0-180)
90
(0-180)
75
(0-150)
45
(0-90)
II
180
(0-365)
135
(0-270)
120
(0-240)
120
(0-240)
120
(0-240)
75
(0-150)
60
(0-120)
60
(0-120)
45
(0-90)
30
(0-60)
I
180
(0-365)
120
(0-240)
105
(0-210)
105
(0-210)
105
(0-210)
60
(0-120)
45
(0-90)
30
(0-60)
30
(0-60)
15
(0-30)
Rev. 10/2022
Behavior Management Form 5 - Jail as an Initial Condition of Felony Probation Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 31
Class A
Person
A
Class B
Person
B
Class A
Other
C
Class B
DV Other
D
Class A
POCS
E
Class B
F
Class C
and below
G
V
105 (0-120) 90 (0-180) 75 (0-150) 60 (0-120) 45 (0-90) 30 (0-60) 15 (0-30)
IV
90 (0-180) 75 (0-150) 60 (0-120) 45 (0-90) 37 (0-75) 22 (0-45) 15 (0-30)
III
75 (0-150) 60 (0-120) 45 (0-90) 37 (0-75) 22 (0-45) 15 (0-30) * (0-15)
II
60 (0-120) 45 (0-90) 30 (0-60) 22 (0-45) 15 (0-30) * (0-15) * (0-7)
I
45 (0-90) 30 (0-60) 15 (0-30) 15 (0-30) * (0-15) * (0-15) * (0-7)
Form 6 – Misdemeanor Matrix
* A problem-solving court is a specialized court designated by the Utah Administrative Oce of the Court. An Order to Show Cause with revocation and actual removal
from the problem-solving court is required in order to count as prior revocation of supervised probation or current offense on supervision.
Consecutive Enhancements (served one after another): 40% of the shorter sentence added to the full length of the longer sentence.
Concurrent Enhancements (served at the same time): 10% of the shorter sentence added to full length of the longer sentence.
PRIOR FELONY CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
PRIOR CLASS A
MISDEMEANOR CONVICTIONS
(Separate adult case numbers)
SUPERVISION HISTORY (Adult
only – Federal, AP&P, private, county,
problem solving court removal*)
MOST RECENT POST-CONVICTION CRIME-FREE GAP
Count from date of sentencing or entry of plea in
abeyance (if no prison) or date of release from prison. Gap
ends at new offense date. (exclude infr, class C, class B
trac and minor regulatory offenses per § 77-40-102(10))
PRIOR JUVENILE ADJUDICATIONS WITHIN PAST 10
YEARS (Offenses that would have been felonies if
committed by adult) (3 class A adjud. = 1 Felony)
PRIOR PERSON OR FIREARM CONVICTIONS
(Adult or juvenile)
One
Two
Three
Four or more
One or two
Three to ve
Six or more
Prior revocation
Current offense
on supervision
Misdemeanor person offense (AD.B)
Felony rearm offense (76-10-5)
Felony person offense (AD.B)
Homicide offense (76-5-2)
One
Two to four
Five or more
Three to four years
Five to six years
Seven to nine years
Ten years or more
2
4
6
8
1
2
3
2
3
2
2
4
6
1
2
3
-1
-2
-3
-4
CRIME CATEGORY
These are guidelines only. They do not create any right or expectation on behalf of
the individual convicted of a crime. Matrix time frames refer to jail days served in
the county jail. Recommended times should not be considered mandatory. This
matrix does not incorporate statutory sentencing requirements for DUI offenses.
JAIL DAYS
PRESUMPTIVE PROBATION
CRIMINAL HISTORY SCORING
*If no mid-point is listed the presumption is that jail time should NOT be recommended.
Class B Person Crime includes domestic violence offenses involving spouses and/or intimate partners. Class B DV Other includes domestic violence offenses involving other
cohabitants, property offenses, and other non-person crimes.
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
ACTIVE CONVICTIONS (MOST SERIOUS FIRST) CRIME CATEGORY TIME
TOTAL
TOTAL SCORE RANGES CRIMINAL HISTORY ROW
V
IV
III
II
I
16+
12 – 15
8 – 11
4 – 7
0 – 3
SCORER’S NAME
DATE SCORED
TOTAL SCORE
Behavior Management Form 6 - Misdemeanor Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 32
Form 7 – Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
Note any aggravating or mitigating circumstances that may justify departure from the guidelines by entering the
page number of the presentence report where the court can nd supporting information. This list of aggravating
and mitigating factors is illustrative. The weight given to each factor by the sentencing, release, or supervision
authority will vary in each case. Any one factor could outweigh some or all other factors. If aggravating factors
are used to increase the length of stay beyond the guideline range, the sentencing, release, or supervision
authority should consider all relevant case law.
Presentence investigators have limited access
to facts that could support aggravating or
mitigating factors. Therefore, defense counsel
and prosecutors are strongly urged to make
any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors
known to the sentencing, release, or supervision
authority before sentencing or release.
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Offense caused substantial monetary loss.
Offense caused substantial physical or psychological injury to the victim.
Offense characterized by extreme cruelty or depravity.
Offense involved two or more victims.
Offense involved activity that continued over a signicant period of time.
Other (Specify)
Individual was engaged in the voluntary screening process in the county jail (LSI:SV, TCUD & MHS).
Individual has paid restitution and/or made good faith effort to begin repayment of restitution to the victim.
Individual has demonstrated compliance with all pre-trial conditions.
Individual is engaged in community-based supervision and/or treatment services consistent with a validated
risk and needs assessment.
Individual’s current living environment is stable and supportive of offense-specic interventions that do not
enable continued criminal or unlawful conduct.
Other (Specify)
PSI Page #
PSI Page #
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
SCORER’S NAME
DATE SCORED
DAYS OF JAIL CREDIT
GUIDELINES PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATION
AP&P RECOMMENDATIONS
REASONS FOR DEPARTURE
Rev. 10/2016
Behavior Management Form 7 - Aggravating and Mitigating Circumstances
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 33
Form 7A – Special Aggravation and Mitigation: Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
This form is only to be used when scoring the Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Utah Code 76-5b-201) or
Aggravated Sexual Exploitation of a Minor (Utah Code 76-5b-201.1) offenses. For those offenses, list any
of the following special aggravating or special mitigating circumstances by entering the page number of the
presentence report where the sentencing or release authority can nd supporting information.
The sentencing or release authority should consider deviating upward in cases with one or more special
aggravating circumstances. The sentencing or release authority should consider deviating downward in cases
with special mitigation.
Presentence investigators have limited access
to facts that could support aggravating or
mitigating factors. Therefore, defense counsel
and prosecutors are strongly urged to make
any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors
known to the sentencing, release, or supervision
authority before sentencing or release.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING FACTORS
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Possession of sexual abuse imagery depicting infant or toddler victims.
Contact or attempted contact with a victim (including a law enforcement ocer posing as a victim).
Offense behavior, including possession or distribution of images, continued for over two years.
Possession of over 10,000 images
Individual was younger than 25 years old at the time of the offense and only possessed images of victim(s) 14
years or older (or post-pubescent).
PSI Page #
PSI Page #
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
Pg#
INDIVIDUAL’S NAME
SCORER’S NAME
DATE SCORED
DAYS OF JAIL CREDIT
GUIDELINES PLACEMENT RECOMMENDATION
AP&P RECOMMENDATIONS
REASONS FOR DEPARTURE
Rev. 10/2016
Behavior Management Form 7A - Special Aggravation/Mitigation: Sexual Exploitation of a Minor
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 34
Risk Reduction Structured Decision-Making Tools
Tools 1 through 6 are relevant to supervision and are interconnected. Tools 1 through 6, as well as
referenced Addenda, should be used in the context of the structured decision-making process to
determine an appropriate response to both accomplishments and violations while on supervision.
Tool 1 – Evidence-Based Practices Tool
Tool 1 emphasizes the most important evidence-based principles for effective supervision. It recommends targeting
supervision resources to high-, intensive-, and moderate-risk individuals, while avoiding placing low-risk individuals into
intensive programming. It also recommends using validated risk assessments to help target programming based on an
objective measurement of criminogenic need and risk.
Tool 1 also provides important guidance on how to supervise individuals, including emphasizing swift, certain, consistent,
proportionate, and fundamentally fair responses. All material behaviors should be met with a response during supervision.
Positive reinforcement should be given at a ratio of 4:1 compared to sanctions.
Finally, Tool 1 includes six “never events” that supervising agents should try to avoid during supervision.
Tool 2A – Supervision Accomplishments Table
Tool 2B – Supervision Violations Table
As explained in Tool 1, a key principle of effective supervision practice is that no accomplishment or violation should go
without a response. Tools 2A and 2B list a number of supervision accomplishments and violations and categorize them
as either low, medium, or high level. The purpose of these tools are to aid supervising authorities in identifying relevant
accomplishments and violations, and also to help determine what type of response is warranted.
Once the level of the accomplishment or violation has been identied, Tool 3 can be used to determine which entity should
respond.
Responses to accomplishments at the various levels are laid out in Tool 4 - Graduated Incentives. Responses to violations at
the various levels are laid out in Tool 5 - Graduated Responses and Sanctions.
Tool 3 - Decision-Making Authority Matrix
Tool 3 designates the appropriate responding entity dependent upon the risk level of the individual and the level of the
violation or accomplishment laid out in Tools 2A and 2B.
Where “Court/BOPP” is designated as the responding entity on Tool 3, notice must be provided to the Court or Board of
Pardons and Parole of the conduct. The supervising agency may or may not request incarceration as a recommended
response.
Where “Probation or Parole Ocer” is designated as the responding entity on Tool 3, the Probation or Parole Ocer may
select from the available responses contained within the corresponding heading on Tool 4 or Tool 5.
Where “P.O. w/ Supervisor Approval” is designated as the responding entity on Tool 3, the Probation or Parole Ocer must
Behavior Management Tool Instructions
BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT TOOLS - INSTRUCTIONS
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 35
obtain supervisor approval prior to imposing a response contained within the corresponding heading on Tool 4 or Tool 5.
Tool 4 - Graduated Incentives
Tool 5 - Graduated Responses & Sanctions
These two tools identify a range of potentially available incentives, responses and sanctions at both the administrative and
Court/Board of Pardons and Parole level. The incentives and sanctions listed with “Probation Ocer” or “P.O. With Supervisor
Approval” on either Tool 4 or Tool 5 were developed in coordination with AP&P in a pilot project and are subject to change.
County or private probation agencies may or may not have the same available options. All options are dependent upon
available resources and do not create a right on behalf of the individual.
In the area designated above the solid black line on either Tool 4 or Tool 5, the standard hearing process is anticipated. The
supervising agency may still make a recommendation, but the ultimate decision rests with the Court or the Board of Pardons
and Parole.
Tool 5 includes incarceration caps for supervision violations brought before the Court or Board of Pardons and Parole. The
caps list the highest number of incarceration days within the cap at the top and the range of incarceration days within the
cap in parentheses below it. The incarceration caps were created to establish more consistency and promote equitable
sentencing, release, and supervision practices across the state. Exceptions to the caps are laid out in Tool 6, as well as U.C.A.
77-18-108(4)(b) (Courts) and 77-27-11(6)(a) (Board of Pardons and Parole).
In 2022, these caps were modied from a graduated series of increasing incarceration ranges to just one broader range for
any violation. This change is intended to facilitate the sentencing, release, and supervision authority’s discretion to issue an
appropriate sanction that ts the violation at issue. A rst violation may be severe enough to warrant an incarceration term,
while a second, third, or subsequent violation of a less serious nature might well be addressed without incarceration.
If incarceration is ordered, the sentencing, release, or supervision authority should think carefully about the purpose
incarceration is serving. Incarceration should be paired with evidence-based risk-reduction programming whenever possible.
The factors listed in the Behavior Management Decision Framework can help inform this decision.
In the area designated just below the solid black line on Tool 5, the standard hearing process in NOT anticipated. An
expedited written process for approval is available and should be utilized to impose a maximum of 5 days every 30 days as
a sanction. The “72-hour hold” process should not be utilized in place of the expedited sanction process. Any booking of an
individual on probation or parole into the county jail should clearly designate whether the individual is being booked on a
“hold” or a “sanction” and include supporting documentation. Specically, if an individual is booked into jail on an expedited
sanction, the signed order of the Court or BOPP authorizing the imposition of the sanction should be provided to jail staff
upon booking and recorded by jail staff accordingly.
Tool 6 – Exceptions to Incarceration Caps
This tool lays out what circumstances suggest an exception to the incarceration caps laid out in Tool 5. Violations suggesting
a substantial risk to public safety are of particular concern.
In addition to these enumerated exceptions, House Bill 28 of the 2022 legislative session also authorized courts and the
Board of Pardons and Parole to deviate from these guidelines as long as an explanation is provided on the record.
The various measures broadening practices around incarceration caps and their exceptions are intended to increase the
sentencing, release, or supervision authority’s exibility to respond appropriately in individual cases, while still promoting a
level of consistency and equity across the system.
Behavior Management Tool Instructions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 36
Tool 1 – Evidence-Based Supervision Practices
Rev, 4/2023
Who to Supervise?
How to Supervise?
Incentives vs. Sanctions
Behavior Management Tool 1 - Evidence Based Supervision Practices
Target Resources to Risk:
Supervision and treatment resources should be prioritized for those individuals who are moerate-, high-, or intensive-risk levels.
Use Risk Assessments:
Use a validated risk-assessment like the LS/RNR (See RNA Tools Used in Utah for more) to target supervision resources. In the
absence of a validated risk assessment, the Central Eight Criminal Risk Factors and Responsivity Factors in Addendum G can help
direct treatment to criminogenic need.
Avoid Placing Low-Risk Individuals in Intensive Programming
Placing low-risk and low-need individuals in programming with higher-risk individuals is an inecient use of resources and can have the
unintended consequence of increasing a low-risk individual’s risk factors.
Be Responsive
The effectiveness of supervision depends on the individual’s knowledge that their compliance or deviation from the behavior
management plan will be met with a response. If a material behavior occurs without a response, compliance will decrease.
Responses Should be Swift, Certain, Consistent, Proportionate, Fair
• The effectiveness of a reward or a sanction decreases as more time passes following the behavior.
• Certainty of responses following behavior creates persistent deterrents and incentives.
• Responses that are proportionate and fair build trust in the process and increase compliance.
• Moderate responses are generally best.
Behavioral research indicates positive reinforcement should be provided at a rate of 4:1 compared with negative reinforcement.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 37
Tool 2A – Supervision Accomplishments Table
Rev. 10/2017
Accomplishment/Compliance Level Nature of Accomplishment
Platinum Success Risk Reduction (20% Improvement) High
Reduction of
Criminal Risk
Factors
Gold Success Risk Reduction (15% Improvement) High
Silver Success Risk Reduction (10% Improvement) High
Bronze Success Risk Reduction (5% Improvement) High
Completion of All Special Conditions of Probation/Parole High
Completion of All Special and Standard Conditions of Probation/Parole High
Earned Compliance Credits High
Active Participation in Programming/Aftercare for “big four” 90 days+ Medium
Evidence-Based
Programming
Targets
Active Participation in Programming/Aftercare for “big four” for 60 days Medium
Active Participation in Programming/Aftercare for “big four” for 30 days Medium
Active Participation in Programming/Aftercare for “mod four” for 90 days+ Medium
Active Participation in Programming/Aftercare for “mod four” for 60 days Medium
Active Participation in Programming/Aftercare for “mod four” for 30 days Medium
Negative Test Result for 90+ days (controlled substance/alcohol) Medium
Negative Test Result for 60 days (controlled substance/alcohol) Medium
Negative Test Result for 30 days (controlled substance/alcohol) Medium
Enrollment in Programming/Aftercare for identied Criminal Risk Factors Medium
Progress on Dynamic Responsivity Factors Medium
Compliant with Medical Orders/Medication Medium
Compliant with Structured Living, Residence, Travel or Reporting Medium
Compliant with Testing Requirements Medium
Responsive to PO Contacts Despite Lack of Full Compliance Medium
Prioritization of short and long term goals (maximum of 3 short term goals) Low
Accountability
Targets
Development of Case Action Plan/Success Plan Low
No Violations/Compliant with standard conditions for 90+ days Low
No Violations/Compliant with standard conditions for 60 days Low
No Violations/Compliant with standard conditions for 30 days Low
Compliance with Community Service Low
Compliance with Financial Conditions Low
Being Truthful or Cooperative Low
Behavior Management Tool 2A - Supervision Accomplishments Table
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 38
Tool 2B – Supervision Violations Table
Rev. 04/2023
Violation Severity Nature of Violation
Felony Conduct High
Public Safety
Conditions
Violations
Misdemeanor Person Conduct or DUI Conduct High
Unauthorized Contact or Location High
Fail to Report for Commitment High
Absconding: Residence, Travel or Reporting – PO Contact Unsuccessful High
Special Conditions Violations: Sex, Gang, DV, DUI, ICE High
Possession of Dangerous Weapon High
Damaging/Tampering/Removing GPS High
Misdemeanor Conduct (Non-Person / Non DUI) Medium
Risk Reduction
Conditions
Violations
Tampering with Device or Testing (controlled substance/alcohol) Medium
Fail to Comply during Field Visit Medium
Unauthorized Electronic Access Medium
Fail to Enroll or Participate in Treatment Medium
Fail to Submit to Testing (controlled substance/alcohol) Medium
Positive Test Result (controlled substance / alcohol) Medium
Repeated Accountability Conditions Violations (2+ of same condition) Medium
Cumulative Accountability Conditions Violations (2+ of any conditions) Medium
Fail to Comply with Employment Conditions Low
Accountability
Conditions
Violations
Fail to Comply with Financial Conditions Low
Fail to Comply with Residence, Travel or Reporting (with PO Contact) Low
Fail to Comply with Structured Living Low
Non-compliant with Medical Orders/Medication Low
Infraction Conduct
Low
Fail to Comply with Curfew Low
Fail to Notify of Police Contact Low
Fail to Participate in CAB Low
Fail to Pay Criminal Accounts Receivable Low
Fail to Complete Community Service Low
Behavior Management Tool 2B - Supervision Violations Table
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 39
Tool 3 – Decision-Making Authority Matrix
Tool 3 designates the appropriate responding entity for violations of supervised probation and/or parole.
Once the appropriate entity is determined from Tool 2, Tool 3 should then be used in determining the magnitude or proportionality of the response. Tools
4 & 5 should then be used to select from the range of available sanctions and incentives. Supervisor approval is not necessary in order to impose a lower
level sanction, response or incentive if indicated by Tool 3.
Individual Risk Level is determined from the results of a validated screening and assessment.
Accomplishment Level is listed in Tool 2A.
Violation Level is listed in Tool 2B.
Court/BOPP designates that notice must be provided to the Court/BOPP of the behavior. Lower level responses are always available to the Court/BOPP.
Given the nature of public safety conditions violations, notication to the Court/BOPP is always required.
P.O. w/Supervisor Approval designates that the Probation or Parole Ocer must obtain supervisor approval prior to imposing a response to the
behavior. Potentially available responses are listed under corresponding headings on Tools 4 & 5. However, supervisor approval is not necessary in order to
impose a lower level sanction, response or incentive if indicated by Tool 3.
Probation or Parole Ocer designates the Probation or Parole Ocer may select from available responses listed under corresponding headings on
Tools 4 & 5.
Rev. 10/2016
Accomplishment or Violation Level
Individual Risk Level High Medium Low
High/Intensive Court/BOPP P.O. w/Supervisor Approval P.O. w/Supervisor Approval
Moderate Court/BOPP P.O. w/Supervisor Approval Probation or Parole Ocer
Low Court/BOPP Probation or Parole Ocer Probation or Parole Ocer
Behavior Management Tools - Supervision Tool 3 - Decision-Making Authority Matrix
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 40
Tool 4 – Graduated Incentives
Rev. 10/2016
Court/BOPP
• 402 Reduction
• Early Termination
• Fine Reduction
• Transfer to Court/Lower Probation
• Any Lower Level Incentive
P.O. with
Supervisor Approval
• Up to 50% Community Service Reduction
• Voucher
• Recommend Fine Reduction
• Approval to Serve as Peer Mentor
• Reduce Substance/Alc. Screening
• Any Lower Level Incentive
Probation/Parole
Ocer Incentives
• Up to 30% Community Service Reduction
• Eliminate Curfew
• Accomplishment Certicate
• Voucher
• Awards
• Reduce Curfew Length
• Redeem 5 Success Chips
• Public Recognition
• Positive Reports
• 2 Success Chips
• 1 Success Chip
• Written Recognition
• Verbal Recognition
These are guidelines only. They do not create any right or expectation on behalf of the individual convicted of a crime. This is a non-exhaustive list of options
which may or may not be available dependent upon resources. Available incentives below the solid black line are cumulative maximum total incentives
which may be awarded without Court or BOPP approval. Specically, Court/BOPP approval should be obtained for community service reductions
exceeding 50% of the total amount ordered.
Behavior Management Tools - Supervision Tool 4 - Graduated Incentives
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 41
Tool 5 – Graduated Responses & Sanctions
Rev. 4/2023
P.O. with Superv. & Court /
BOPP Approval
• Hearing Before Court/BOPP
• Community Correctional Center
• 1-3 Days Jail Per Sanction (Maximum of 5 days/30 Days)
• 90+ Days GPS/EM or at individual’s cost
P.O. with
Supervisor Approval
• Any Lower Level Response
• Request Court/BOPP Sanction
• <90 day Curfew
• <90 Day GPS/EM or no individual cost
• <72 Hours Home Restriction
• Treatment Resource Center
• <16 Hours Community Service
Probation/Parole Ocer
Sanctions & Responses
• Up to 60 Day Curfew
• Travel Restriction
• Structured Living
• Increased Supervision
• Require Change in Residence
• Revision of Case Action Plan
• Increased Reporting/Testing
• Community Accountability Board
• Workshops
• Assignments
• Family Meeting
• Intervention Assignment
• Mentoring Program
• Develop Risk Avoidance Plan
• Letter of Apology
• Verbal Warning
These are guidelines only. Except as provided in Utah Code § 77-18-105(7) and 77-27-11(6), they do not create any right or expectation on behalf of any individual.
This is a non-exhaustive list of options which may or may not be available dependent upon resources. Any lower response is always available to the Court or
BOPP. A behavioral intervention response targeting an individual’s non-compliant behavior should be administered where appropriate.
Prior versions of the guidelines included graduated incarceration caps for rst, second, third and subsequent revocations. These graduated steps have
been removed in order to grant the sentencing, release, and supervision authorities more exibility in tailoring a response to t the individual case. A rst
revocation may require a more intensive response, or a third revocation a less intensive response, depending on the risk and response dynamics involved. The
sentencing, release, or supervision authority should focus on the goals for correcting the behavior and whether the response serves those goals. Maximum
incarceration caps for any single revocation, subject to exceptions outlined in Tool 6, were left in place to promote consistent and equitable sentencing,
release, and supervision practices statewide.
Tool 3 may be used to increase or decrease the magnitude of the response within the guideline range, for the indicated decision making authority (court/
BOPP, P.O. w/Supervisor, or P.O.), and should be reviewed for each violation. Tool 6 should be used for any time period imposed beyond the caps listed herein.
72 hour holds are not to be used as a means to avoid the sanction process listed herein. Any booking into the county jail for sanction days should be clearly
designated as such and should include the signed order of the Court/BOPP approving the sanction days.
INCARCERATION CAPS
PROBATION REVOCATION PAROLE REVOCATION
90
(0-90)
180
(0-180)
Behavior Management Tools - Supervision Tool 5 - Graduated Responses & Sanctions
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 42
Tool 6 – Exceptions to Incarceration Caps
PROBATION
PAROLE
Rev. 4/2023
To be exercised by the Court or BOPP only with a hearing and upon entry of appropriate ndings. The use of exceptions are dependent upon the nature of each
violation, not the number of hearings. In addition to these enumerated exceptions, House Bill 28 of the 2022 legislative session also authorized courts
and the Board of Pardons and Parole to deviate from the guidelines as long as an explanation is provided on the record. See U.C.A. 77-18-108(4)(b)
and 77-27-11(6)(c).
Jurisdiction over new criminal conviction with new guideline recommendations from Forms 1-5 attached.
Finding that execution of sentence previously imposed is
warranted pursuant to 77-18-108(4)(b)(iv)
Revocation of parole for lying or engaging in criminal conduct
prior to parole pursuant to 77-27-10(1)(b),
including when individual engaged in criminal conduct prior to release and
BOPP was unaware of conduct at the time it made decision to release; or
individual lied prior to release and that lie led to BOPP decision to release.
Guilty and Mentally Ill compliance pursuant to 77-16a-205,
including when the BOPP is required by statute to conduct a formal review of
an individual who plead guilty and mentally ill before considering release. The
time required to conduct this review could exceed the caps.
Parole Violation Hearing continued pursuant to Admin. Rule
R671-204,
including when new charges are pending; an evidentiary hearing is required;
competency or mental illness needs of the individual; to allow victim
participation; or individual requests continuance.
Rescission pursuant to Administrative Rule R671-310,
including when the BOPP decides to rescind a parole date that was previously
granted because individual engaged in major misconduct in prison or was
convicted of further criminal conduct.
Finding that conduct presents a substantial risk to public safety that cannot be addressed through behavior modication sanctions.
Substantial risks to public safety include, but are not limited to:
A. “Per Se” Violations: e.g. dangerous weapons, eeing via high speed chase, violent arrest behavior, new person crime allegations,
high priority CCC walkways; or
B. “Crime of Commitment Dependent” Violations: e.g. sex offense in cycle, repeat DUI violations, person crime absconder, mental
health instability that negatively impacts a criminogenic risk factor, repeat domestic violence offenses, serious nancial crimes.
Behavior Management Tools - Supervision Tool 6 - Exceptions to Incarceration Caps
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 43
Termination Overview
WHAT IS TERMINATION?
Termination is the “when” of criminal sentencing. When the goals of sentencing have been met such that supervision,
incarceration, or other involvement with the criminal justice system is no longer needed, that sentence should terminate.
WHY IS TERMINATION IMPORTANT?
By denition, no one can succeed without criteria for success. A crucial part of sentencing, therefore, is considering when and
by what criteria the sentence should end. The Supervision Length Guidelines create goals and benchmarks to measure the
progress of individuals under supervision.
Open-ended, overly intensive, or unnecessarily lengthy supervision terms can do more harm than good,
1
and extending
supervision resources beyond the length necessary to measure progress is not an effective use of resources.
HOW IS TERMINATION DETERMINED?
The supervision length guidelines lay out the process for termination evaluation of criminal supervision
2
.The sentencing
authority should set review dates at both the early termination and mandatory termination deadlines. The supervising
authority should track progress towards those deadlines and request termination when the goals of sentencing have been
met.
ARE THE SUPERVISION LENGTH GUIDELINES MANDATORY?
In contrast to most of the rest of these guidelines, many aspects of the supervision length guidelines are mandatory.
Although the sentencing authority retains substantial discretion to craft and modify supervision in a way that best ts
the case, the legislature has established certain mandatory guardrails to ensure that the processes around ordering and
terminating supervision is equitable statewide.
Mandatory Process Discretionary Decision
Initial lengths of supervision shall be set consistent with the
supervision length guidelines. See U.C.A. §77-18-105(7)(a)(ii); See also
U.C.A. §76-3-202(1) (dealing with parole).
Supervision may be extended, subject to approrpriate ndings at
the review hearings, up to the statutory limits.
Early termination and mandatory termination reviews shall be
held in accordance with the supervision length guidelines. The
supervising authority shall submit reports prior to the deadlines
See U.C.A. §77-18-105(7)(a)(iii); See also U.C.A. §76-3-202(1) (dealing with
parole).
Early termination requests may be denied, subject to appropriate
ndings.
Supervision terms may not extend past the maximum prison
sentence for the offense at issue, or 36 months for any misde-
meanor (statutory limits). See U.C.A. §77-18-105(7)(a)(i) and (7)(b).
Supervision may be terminated earlier than the deadlines, sub-
ject to appropriate ndings.
1 Lowenkamp, C. and Latessa, E. (2004). Understanding the Risk Principle: How and Why Correctional Interventions Can Harm Low Risk Offenders. Topics in Community Corrections. 3-8.
2 The supervision length guidelines are not retroactive and do not apply to individuals while they are incarcerated in prison, or individuals paroled prior to January 1, 2019.
IV. TERMINATION OVERVIEW
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 442022 PAGE 44
1
If a statutory limit requires a period of supervision that is shorter than the early termination review, then early termination will not be available.
2
The General, Sex and Kidnap, Financial Crimes with Serious Loss, and Homicide charts apply to both probation and parole. The Misdemeanor chart applies only to probation. The Class A column
on the General chart applies only to Class A misdemeanors sentenced to prison.
3
If the offense with the longest supervision period expires during the parole period, the supervision guideline length does not change.
1st Degree
Person
2nd Degree
Person
1st Degree
Other
3rd Degree
Person
2nd Other
Specic 3rds
2nd Poss
3rd Other
3rd Poss
Class A (prison)
48 / 24 48 / 24 36 / 18 36 / 18 36 / 18 36 / 18 24 / 12
1st Degree
Aggravated
Murder
1st
Degree
Murder
Attempted
Aggravated
Murder
1st
Degree
Death
2nd
Degree
Death
2nd
Degree Auto
Homicide
3rd
Degree
Death
Class A
Death
168 / 84 168 / 84 168 / 84 168 / 84 60 / 30 60 / 30 60 / 30 36 / 18
1st Degree
Mandatory Prison
1st
Degree
2nd
Degree
3rd
Degree
Class A
120 / 60 120 / 60 48 / 24 48 / 24 36 / 18
GENERAL
HOMICIDE
SEX AND KIDNAP
FINANCIAL OFFENSE WITH SERIOUS LOSS
2nd Degree -
> $1 Million nancial
loss
2nd Degree -
$200,000 - $999,999
nancial loss
2nd Degree -
$50,000 - $199,999
nancial loss
60 / 30 48 / 24 36 / 18
Supervision Length Guidelines
The Court and the Board of Pardons and Parole shall use the following charts to set the initial length of supervision unless
a statute requires a shorter length of supervision.
1
Whether early termination is warranted or whether supervision must be
continued will ultimately be based on the behavior of the person under supervision and the discretion of the Court or the Board of
Pardons and Parole according to these guidelines. The same charts apply to both probation and parole.
2
The rst number in each
box represents the number of months for the initial length of supervision and identies a mandatory review date. The second
number in each box is the number of months for the early termination review date. For the purposes of parole, in situations
with multiple convictions, the supervision length guideline category shall be based on the offense conviction with the longest
supervision period.
3
Crime categories are listed in Addendum B of the Adult Sentencing & Release Guidelines.
IX. SUPERVISION LENGTH GUIDELINES
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 45202 PAGE 45
Early Termination Review Process
A person under supervision is eligible for early termination at the early termination review date if the following three require-
ments are met:
1. TREATMENT
• Completion of ordered assessments and any recommended treatment or programming by a licensed provider.
• For the purposes of this section, persons voluntarily engaged in ongoing care after having completing ordered treatment
shall be considered as having completed treatment.
• If no treatment is ordered, then this requirement has been met.
2. RISK REDUCTION
a. General Criminogenic Risk
i. Risk reduction as indicated by ANY of the following:
1. Overall reduction of 5 percent or more on LS/RNR or other validated risk assessment.
2. Reduction by one level on LS/RNR or other validated risk assessment (e.g., high to moderate).
3. Maintaining an overall risk level of moderate or low on LS/RNR or other validated risk assessment.
b. Sex Offender Specic Risk
1
i. Risk reduction as indicated by an average or below overall score on a validated sex-offender risk assessment
or a risk assessment designated by the Utah Department of Corrections Sex Offender Task Force; and
ii. If ordered by the Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole, completion of an exit polygraph.
If the Treatment and Risk Reduction requirements are met, Adult Probation and Parole or the relevant supervising authority
shall submit notice to the Court for probationers or the Board of Pardons for parolees with supporting rationale for early
termination based on the Compliance and Stability requirement not fewer than 30 days prior to the early termination review
date. If either of the rst two requirements are not met, the supervising authority is not required to submit an early termination
report. However, once treatment is completed and risk reduction is achieved the supervising authority shall submit notice
to the Court or Board of Pardons with the supporting rationale for termination. Notice shall be submitted within 30 days of
meeting both requirements.
3. COMPLIANCE AND STABILITY
a. The supervising authority shall submit a report with an articulation of whether the person under supervision is
stable and compliant that shall include:
i. Risk assessment history;
ii. Case Action Plan (CAP) or risk reduction progress;
1
This requirement applies only to individuals convicted of a sexual offense as dened in Addendum C of the Adult & Sentencing & Release Guidelines or individuals ordered to comply with sex
offender specic conditions. Sex offenders must also meet the Risk Reduction requirement outlined in 2A.
Class A
Person / DUI
Class B
Person / DUI
Class A
Other
Class B DV
Other
Class A
POCS
Class B Class C
24 / 12 24 / 12 24 / 12 24 / 12 24 / 12 12 / 6 6 / 0
MISDEMEANOR (PROBATION)
Supervision Length Guidelines
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 46PAGE 46
iii. Treatment or programming progress;
iv. Response and Incentive Matrix (RIM) History, including both responses and incentives;
v. Information on any new criminal conduct;
vi. Restitution payment history;
vii. Employment history, residence, any other relevant factors;
viii. A recommendation on the termination of supervision;
b. The Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole, taking into consideration the recommendation of the supervising authority,
shall determine whether the person under supervision has been compliant and stable. Compliance and stability may
be found based on success in any one or more of the compliance and stability sub-categories. If a person is denied early
termination based on a failure to meet the compliance and stability requirement, the supervising authority shall submit a new
report within 30 days of the time the person meets the compliance and stability requirement as articulated by the Court or the
Board of Pardons and Parole.
If all three criteria are met, the Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole shall terminate supervision unless:
1. There is a new criminal conviction or new criminal conduct;
2. The supervising authority has submitted a notice of violations or an order or warrant has been issued
2
for violation
proceedings in the present case; or
3. The person poses a substantial risk to public safety. Substantial risks to public safety include, but are not limited to:
i. Per Se Violation of Supervision Conditions: e.g., dangerous weapons, eeing via high speed chase, violent arrest
behavior, new person crime allegations, high priority CCC walkaways; or
ii. Criminal History Dependent: e.g., sex offender in cycle, repeat DUI violations, person crime absconder, mental health
instability that negatively impacts a criminogenic risk factor, repeat domestic violence offender, serious nancial crimes,
including crimes with serious nancial loss exceeding $50,000.
If the Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole denies early termination of supervision under these circumstances, it shall
articulate its reasons in writing or on the record and may explain what is required to be eligible for the next termination request.
Requests for Termination Before the Early Termination Date
Adult Probation and Parole or the relevant supervising authority may submit for termination of supervision at any time, even if
it is before the early termination review date indicated in the guidelines. The Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole may set
individual criteria for a termination that is earlier than the guidelines at the time of probation sentencing or granting of parole.
However, because the early-termination dates are based on evidence of recidivism risks, the Court and the Board of Pardons and
Parole is not required to provide reasons for denying early termination requests submitted more than 90 days prior to the Early
Termination Date.
Mandatory Review Process
Within 30 days of the mandatory review date according to the guidelines, the supervising authority shall submit a report
that documents current progress on the three criteria areas of Treatment, Risk Reduction, and Compliance and Stability and
provides a recommendation about the termination of supervision or other action. Upon receiving the mandatory review report,
the Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole shall terminate supervision if the individual has met the three requirements for
early termination (Treatment, Risk Reduction, and Compliance and Stability) unless:
2
If prior notice of violations or a warrant has been issued, the supervising authority is not required to submit a separate termination report.
Supervision Length Guidelines
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 47PAGE 47
1. There is a new criminal conviction or new criminal conduct;
2. The supervising authority has submitted a notice of violations or an order or warrant has been issued
3
for violation
proceedings in the present case; or
3. The person poses a substantial risk to public safety. Substantial risks to public safety include, but are not limited to:
i. Per Se Violation of Supervision Conditions: e.g., dangerous weapons, eeing via high speed chase, violent arrest
behavior, new person crime allegations, high priority CCC walkaways; or
ii. Criminal History Dependent: e.g., sex offender in cycle, repeat DUI violations, person crime absconder, mental health
instability that negatively impacts a criminogenic risk factor, repeat domestic violence offender, serious nancial
crimes, including crimes with serious nancial loss exceeding $50,000.
When a person under supervision has reached the initial length of supervision according to the guidelines, but has not met the
three requirements for early termination (Treatment, Risk Reduction, and Compliance and Stability), the Court or the Board of
Pardons and Parole may either terminate supervision or continue supervision to allow the person under supervision more time
to meet all the criteria.
4
The total length of supervision may not extend beyond the length of the person’s maximum sentence
in the case of felonies or beyond three years in the case of misdemeanors.
If the Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole denies termination of supervision under these circumstances, it shall
articulate its reasons in writing or on the record and explain what is required to be eligible for the next termination request.
The supervising authority shall submit a new report within 30 days of the time the person has met all the criteria.
If the Court fails to issue an order or decision about the termination of supervision before the mandatory review date, then
supervision shall be terminated on that date.
If the Board of Pardons and Parole has received a mandatory review report and fails to issue a decision about the termination
of parole within 30 calendar days of receipt of the report, parole shall be terminated. If the Board of Pardons and Parole must
return a report to AP&P for additional or corrected information, the Board of Pardons has 30 calendar days from receipt of the
updated or corrected report to issue the decision about the termination of the parole.
Other Supervision Length Guideline Instructions
Restitution
If the person under supervision has the ability to pay restitution and fails, Adult Probation and Parole or the relevant
supervising authority shall respond appropriately according to the Response and Incentive Matrix and may submit a violation
report as warranted. The Court may deny termination of probation due to lack of restitution payment only if it makes a nding
of contempt according to Utah Code section 78B-6-317(4). The Board of Pardons and Parole may deny termination of parole
due to lack of restitution payment only if the person under supervision has a clear ability to pay and is not paying a reasonable
amount of restitution. If the Court terminates probation according to the guidelines, but restitution remains unpaid, the Court
may order court supervision for the sole purpose of collecting unpaid restitution. Non-payment of nes or fees may not be
considered for termination of supervision.
3
If prior notice of violations or a warrant has been issued, the supervising authority is not required to submit a separate termination report.
4
All modications of probation shall conform with the requirements of Utah Code section 77-18-105. Consistent with Utah Code section 77-18-108(2)(b)(i), the Court may not extend probation
beyond the initial length of supervision “except upon waiver of a hearing by the probationer or upon a hearing and a nding in court that the probationer has violated the conditions of probation.” And,
consistent with Utah Code Section 77-18-108(2)(b)(ii), the Court may not revoke probation “except upon a hearing in court and a nding that the conditions of probation have been violated.”
Supervision Length Guidelines
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 482 PAGE 48
Financial Offenses with Serious Loss
In 2022, the Sentencing and Release Guidelines were updated to include a new Form 4, reecting more substantial sentencing
recommendations for nancial offenses where pecuniary damage to the victim(s) exceeds $50,000. Supervision lengths for
these offenses have been comparably increased in the new Financial Offense table above. As with Form 4, this table should
only be used where pecuniary damage reected in the J&C exceeds the $50,000 nancial loss threshold.
For nancial offenses pre-dating these new forms, where J&C’s may not clearly reect the nancial loss amount, serious
nancial loss should still be considered as part of the public safety analysis at termination hearings.
Supervision practices for these offenses should emphasize collection of restitution as a primary goal of supervision, and
supervision may be extended for the purpose of collecting restitution.
The Controlling Version of the Supervision Length Guidelines
The version of the Supervision Length Guidelines that was effective at the time of sentencing shall govern for probation. If
probation is revoked and reinstated in a manner that is consistent with the guidelines and does not exceed the maximum
length of a person’s sentence in the case of felonies or three years in the case of misdemeanors, the version of the
Supervision Length Guidelines that was effective at the time of the revoking and reinstating shall govern.
The version of the Supervision Length Guidelines that was effective at the time of release from prison to parole shall govern
for parole. If a person returns to prison because parole is revoked, and the individual is released again on parole, the version
of the guidelines that was effective at the time of the subsequent release shall govern.
If a period of probation is served before a prison sentence, it does not limit the length of time for parole supervision. The
controlling version of the Supervision Length Guidelines for parole following a prison sentence that resulted from a probation
revocation shall be the version that was in effect at the time of release from prison to parole.
Because the guidelines can change, defendants and their counsel should use caution in relying on the guidelines when
determining whether to pursue or accept a plea agreement. The guidelines are not retroactive. The initial length of supervision
is not binding and is subject to change based on the behavior of the person under supervision and the discretion of the Court
or the Board of Pardons and Parole according to these guidelines.
Archaic or Unlisted Offenses
Not all offenses sentenced to prison will be listed in Addendum B or C of the Adult Sentencing & Release Guidelines or
otherwise directly addressed in the Supervision Length Guidelines. For individuals on parole, the Board of Pardons and Parole
shall have the authority to determine the category of offenses that are not listed in the current guidelines. This determination,
however, may not have any impact on the individual’s maximum sentence length.
Scope of the Supervision Length Guidelines
The guidelines apply whenever the Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole orders supervision. This specically includes
when Adult Probation and Parole, county, or private probation is ordered. The guidelines, however, do not apply to supervision
Supervision Length Guidelines
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 49
Supervision Length Guidelines
of a person who is participating in a specialty court, problem-solving court, or court probation.
Single Supervision Term
The Court or the Board of Pardons and Parole may not impose consecutive probation or parole terms in a single case where
there are multiple criminal charges. Consecutive sentences may increase an individual’s maximum sentence length, which
could increase the statutory limit on probation length as well. For parole, the supervision length shall be consolidated under
the longest supervision period according to the guidelines.
Applicable Risk Assessment
For determining whether a person on supervision has reduced risk or maintained a low or moderate risk level, the most
current risk assessment shall be compared to the risk assessment nearest to the time when supervision began. An
administrative or judicial override of a supervision level may not be considered for the purposes of risk reduction.
Mental Health Issues Alone Not a Threat to Public Safety
Mental health issues or concerns alone shall not be sucient cause to identify a public safety risk. However, if mental health
issues are creating circumstances or exacerbating risk factors that do pose a public safety risk, the Court or the Board of
Pardons and Parole may consider mental health issues to the extent they affect those specic criminogenic factors.
Tracking Results
The Sentencing Commission shall request that the Courts and the Board of Pardons and Parole provide data and information
regarding any deviations from the Supervision Length Guidelines based on the articulated exceptions. The Sentencing
Commission shall also request that the Utah Department of Corrections provide data on the length of probation and parole
supervision and timelines for submission. The Sentencing Commission shall issue reports as it deems necessary to ensure
that the Supervision Length Guidelines are achieving the statutorily dened goals.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 50
In cases involving multiple current offenses, it may not be clear from the matrices, which is the most severe offense. The following chart lists the 25 columns
of the matrices in order of severity for purposes of identifying the correct column to use to intersect with the criminal history row in order to arrive at a guide-
lines recommendation. The chart will also identify which matrix to use if the current offenses include both sex offenses and non-sex offenses. This chart
does not attempt to comment on the egregiousness or victimization of a particular offense or category of offenses. It simply lists a hierarchy of guidelines
severity when considering both disposition and length of stay.
Rank Crime Category Matrix
1 1st Degree Aggravated Murder Homicide
2 1st Degree Murder Homicide
3 1st Degree Mandatory Prison 25 to Life Sex Offense
4 1st Degree Mandatory Prison 15 to Life Sex Offense
5 Attempted Aggravated Murder Homicide
6 1st Degree Mandatory Prison 10 to Life Sex Offense
7 1st Degree Mandatory Prison 6 to Life Sex Offense
8 1st Degree Mandatory Prison 5 to Life Sex Offense
9 1st Degree Mandatory Prison 3 to Life Sex Offense
10 1st Degree 5 to Life Sex Offense
11 1st Degree Death Homicide
12 1st Degree Person General
13 2nd Degree Death Homicide
14 1st Degree 3 to Life Sex Offense
15 1st Degree Other General
16 2nd Degree 1 to 15 Sex Offense
17 3rd Degree 0 to 5 Sex Offense
18 2nd Degree Person General
19 3rd Degree Death Homicide
20 3rd Degree Person General
21 2nd Degree Other General
22 2nd Degree Possession General
23 3rd Degree Other General
24 Class A Misdemeanor 0 to 1 Sex Offense
25 3rd Degree Possession General
Addenda - Addendum A: Crime Column Severity Listing
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 51
This section categorizes criminal offenses to help the user identify the appropriate Behavior Management Form and, where
applicable, the appropriate column within that form. These categories may also be used for criminal history scoring on Forms
1-6, but the scorer may need to refer to prior versions of the guidelines for historical offenses.
The Offense Categories and their corresponding Forms are as follows:
Offense Category Description
Person Offenses Offenses involving physical injury, threat, or other non-nancial harm to persons.
Death Offenses Offenses resulting in death of a person, but not amounting to murder.
Murder Offenses Offenses involving murder (or Attempted Aggravated Murder) of another person.
Financial Offenses with
Serious Loss
Certain specic nancial offenses, including major fraud offenses, that result in pecuniary losses to
victim(s) of over $50,000.
Specic 3rd Certain third-degree felony offenses considered more dangerous than offenses in the “other” catego-
ry
Possession Only Offenses involving only possession of controlled substances.
Other Offenses that do not t into the above categories, including drug offenses that are not “possession
only,” property/nancial offenses that do not result in serious nancial loss, offenses against the
public order, etc.
Also includes offenses not specied in these Addenda, unless the sentencing, release, or supervision
authority nds they t into another category.
*Sex Offenses are categorized separately in Addendum C.
Where there is ambiguity in these categorizations, the sentencing, release, or supervision authority may determine the category
to which the offense belongs upon entering ndings consistent with relevant caselaw, including State v. Watereld, 2014 UT App
67 and State v. Sandridge, 2015 UT App 297. If an offense is not listed in Addendum B and the sentencing, release, or supervision
authority makes no nding that it qualies as another category of offense, it is then categorized as an Other Offense.
Note that there is a high degree of variability in the specic code sections and subsections used in conviction records statewide.
The citations and offense names below may not correspond exactly with those used in the conviction record. The sentencing,
release, or supervision authority should strive to match the offense of conviction with its appropriate category, using the below
tables as a reference point.
Some offenses may fall into more than one category. For example, an offense can be both a Person and Murder offense,
depending on whether it resulted in a death. In those instances, the highest scoring applicable category and form should be
used, based on the crime of conviction and underlying factual basis.
Crime categorizations may change or new crimes may be added by legislation between guideline editions. Check justice.utah.
gov/sentencing for updates to the crime categorization addendums, or categorize using the descriptions above.
Addendum B: Categorization of Offenses
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 52
ADDENDUM B - CRIME CATEGORIZATIONS:
Code Citation Description Category
4-32-116(1) Bribery Offenses, Meat/Poultry Chapter - Agricultural Code Other
4-32-116(2) Interference, Meat/Poultry Chapter – Agricultural Code Person, Murder
4-38-303 Bribery, Utah Horse Regulation Act Other
7-1-318(3) False Statement or Entry by Financial Institution Other
7-1-803(4) Conicts of Interest, Financial Institution Other
7-5-10 Lending Trust Funds to Trust Company, Off., Dir., Empl. Other
9-9-404 Illegal Tracking Native American Remains Other
10-3-1310 Municipal Ocers’ & Employees’ Ethics Act Violation Other
13-2-6(2) Violation of Cease & Desist Order – Div. Consumer Prot. Other
13-10-8(3) Failure to Disclose Origin of a Recording Other
13-23-7(2) Violation of Health Spa Services Protection Act Other
13-26-8(1) Violation of Telephone Fraud Prevention Act Other
17-43-308(1) and (2) Prohibited Treatments Other
19-2-115
Violation of Air Quality Act Other
19-3-110 Violation of Radiation Control Act Other
19-5-115 Violation of Water Quality Act Other
19-6-113 Violation of Solid & Hazardous Waste Act Other
19-6-822 Violation of Waste Tire Recycling Act Other
20A-1-601 Bribery in Elections Other
20A-1-602 Receiving Bribe in Elections Other
20A-1-603 Voting Fraud, Tampering with Ballots or Records Other
20A-1-606 Wagering on Elections Other
20A-1-607 Inducing Attendance at Polls Other
20A-1-608 Promises of Appointment to Oce Other
20A-1-609 Omnibus Election Penalties Other
20A-1-610 Abetting Election Violation Other
23-13-14(3) Unlawful Release of Wildlife Other
23-20-4 Wanton Destruction of Protected Wildlife Other
23-20-4.7 Habitual Wanton Destruction of Protected Wildlife Other
26-18-4 Performing Abortion Under Auspices of Medicaid Program Other
26-20-5 False Statements Relating to Qualication of Health Inst. Other
26-20-9 Violations of False Claims Act Other
26-23-5.5 Illegal Use of Birth Certicate Other
26-28-116 Sale or Use of Body Parts Prohibited Other
26-28-117 Falsication of Documents Related to Organ Donation Other
30-1-9.1 Providing Consent for Child to Enter Prohibited Marriage Other
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 53
Code Citation Description Category
30-1-13 Solemnization of Marriage Without License Other
30-1-14 Acting Without Authority to Perf. Marriage; Impersonation Other
30-1-15(1) Solemnization of Prohibited Marriage of Minor Other
31A-16-111 Insurance Holding Companies Violation Other
31A-16-112(4) Willful Violation of Insurance Code Other
31A-16-112(5) False Filing - Intent to Deceive Insurance Commissioner Other
32B-4-401 Unlawful Sale or Furnishing of Alcohol Other
32B-4-503 Tampering With Records of ABC Commission Other
32B-4-504 Making False Material Statement Before ABC Commission Other
32B-4-505 Obstructing Ocial Proceed./Investig. Under ABC Act Other
32B-4-508 Offering or Soliciting Bribes or Gifts Under ABC Act Other
32B-4-509 Forgery Under ABC Act Other
34A-2-110 Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fraud Other
35A-8-410 Housing Assistance Fraud Other
41-1a-1313 Poss. of Vehicle or Parts Without Identication Number Other
41-1a-1314 Unauthorized Control of Vehicle for Extended Time Other
41-1a-1315 False Evidences of Title and Registration Other
41-1a-1316 Possession of, Receiving, Transferring Stolen Vehicle Other
41-1a-1317 Selling or Buying Vehicle Without Identication Number Other
41-1a-1318 Fraudulent Alteration of Identication Number Other
41-1a-1319 Odometer Violation Other
41-1a-1320(3) Failure to Obtain Tax Clearance to Move Manufactured or Mobile Home Other
41-3-413 Alteration of Disclosure Statement Other
41-4-9 Financing Dealers and Purchasers Violation Other
41-6a-210 Fail to Respond to Ocer’s Signal to Stop Specic 3rd
41-6a-210(2) Fail to Respond Causing Ser. Bodily Injury or Death Person, Death
41-6a-401.3 Fail to Stop - Accident Involving Injury Person
41-6a-401.5 Fail to Stop - Accident Involving Death Death
41-6a-502.5 Impaired Driving Other
41-6a-503(1) Driving Under the Inuence Other
41-6a-503(2)(a) DUI Passenger Under 16 Person
41-6a-503(2)(b) DUI Passenger Under 18, Driver Over 21 Person
41-6a-503(3)(a) Driving Under the Inuence – 3rd or Subsequent Conv. Specic 3rd
41-6a-503(3)(b) Driving Under the In. – Post Auto Homicide or Felony DUI Specic 3rd
41-6a-520(8) Refusal of Chemical Test - Felony DUI Conduct Specic 3rd
41-6a-1716(4)(b) Inict Ser. Bod. Injury – Driving & Using Handh. Wirel. Dev. Person
41-12a-805 Unauth. Rel. of Info. From Uninsured Motorist ID Database Other
52-1-13(3) Public Ocer Making False Material Stmt. to Secure Bond Other
58-5a-501 Unlawful Conduct – Podiatric Physician Licensing Act Other
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 54
Code Citation Description Category
58-16a-503 Unlawful Conduct – Utah Optometry Practice Act Other
58-17b-504(1) Unlawful Conduct – Pharmacy Practice Act Other
58-31b-503 Unlawful Conduct – Nurse Practice Act Other
58-37-8 Controlled Substance Violation - Not Designated as Possession Herein Other
58-37-8(2)(a)(i) Felony Possession/Use of Controlled Substance Possession
58-37-8(2)(a)(ii) Allow Possession/Use of Contr. Substance on Premises Possession
58-37-8(2)(a)(iii) Felony Possession of Altered or Forged Prescription Possession
58-37-8(2)(b)(i) Possession of Marijuana > 100 lbs Other
58-37-8(2)(b)(ii) Felony Possession Schedule I or II Possession
58-37-8(2)(d) Felony Possession/Use of Other Controlled Substance Possession
58-37-8(2)(e) Possession/Use of Controlled Subst. in Correctional Facility Possession
58-37-8(3)(a)(i) Felony Fictitious Use of License to Obtain Contr. Subst. Other
58-37-8(3)(a)(ii) Felony Obtaining/Dispensing False Prescription Other
58-37-8(3)(a)(iii) Felony Making/Uttering/Altering False or Forged Prescrip. Other
58-37a-5(1) Possessing Drug Paraphernalia Possession
58-37a-5(2) Delivering Drug Paraphernalia Other
58-37a-5(3) Delivering Drug Paraphernalia to Person Under 18 Other
58-37a-5(4) Advertising or Promoting Sale of Drug Paraphernalia Other
58-37c-11 Unlawful Conduct – Controlled Substances Precursor Act Other
58-37d-4 Violation of Clandestine Drug Lab Act Other
58-37d-5 Violation of Clandestine Drug Lab Act Other
58-37f-601 Unlawful Release/Obtain. Info. - Contr. Subst. Database Other
58-44a-503 Unlawful Conduct – Nurse Midwife Practice Act Other
58-55-501(13) Misuse of Funds Received by Contractor Other
58-60-111 Unlawful Conduct – Mental Health Professional Pract. Act Other
58-61-503 Unlawful Conduct – Psychologist Licensing Act Other
58-68-503 Unlawful Conduct – Utah Osteopathic Medical Pract. Act Other
58-69-503 Unlawful Conduct – Dentist & Dental Hygienist Pract. Act Other
58-70a-504 Unlawful Conduct – Physician Assistant Act Other
58-71-503 Unlawful Conduct – Naturopathic Physician Pract. Act Other
58-72-502 Unlawful Conduct – Acupuncture Licensing Act Other
58-73-502 Unlawful Conduct – Chiropractic Physician Pract. Act Other
59-10-541 Failure to File Tax Return; False Info.; Evading Tax Other
59-14-209 Violation of Cigarette Tax Stamp Other
61-1-21(1) Violation of Utah Uniform Securities Act Other
61-1-21(2)(a) Violation of Utah Uniform Securities Act Under $10,000 Other
61-1-21(2)(b) Securities Fraud above $10,000 Other, Financial Offense
61-1-21(3) Securities Fraud under $10,000 with Equity/Investment Account Depletion Other
61-1-21(4) Securities Fraud above $10,000 with Equity/Investment Account Depletion Other, Financial Offense
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 55
Code Citation Description Category
61-2c-405 Division of Real Estate Violation Other
62A-4a-709 False/Fraudulent Claim for Medical Assist. Identication Other
62A-6-116 Unauthorized Sterilization Other
62A-7-402 Harboring/Concealing Youth Offense Other
63E-1-404 Unlawful Benet From Privatization of Independent Entity Other
63G-6a-2404 Unlawful Conduct – Utah Procurement Code Other
63M-7-510 Filing False Claim with Crime Victims Reparations Other
65A-3-2.5(3)(c) Reckl. Op. Unmanned Aircr.- Direct Physical Contact Person
65A-3-2.5(3)(d) Reckl. Op. Unmanned Aircr.- Prox. Cause Collision Person
67-1a-7 Unlawful Use of State Seal Other
67-16-12 Violation of Ethics Act Other
73-18-7.1 Fraudulent Application – Register Motorboat Other
73-18-7.2 Altering/Forging Registration or Certicate- Motorboat Title Other
73-18-13.2(3)(b) Fail to Stop – Boating Accident Involving Ser. Bodily Injury Person
73-18-13.3 Fail to Stop – Boating Accident Involving Death Death
73-18-20.3 Falsied Hull Identication Other
73-18-20.7 Unlawful Control Over Vessel Other
76-5-102 Assault Person
76-5-102.1(3)(a)(i) Negligent Operation of a Vehicle Resulting in Injury Person
76-5-102.1(3)(a)(ii) Negligent Operation of a Vehicle Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury Person
76-5-102.3 Assault Against School Employees Person
76-5-102.4 Assault Against a Peace Off./Military Serv. Memb. -Uniform Person
76-5-102.5 Assault by a Prisoner Person
76-5-102.6 Propelling Substance/Object at Correct. or Peace Ocer Person
76-5-102.7 Assault Against Health Care Prov./Emer. Med. Serv. Prov. Person
76-5-102.8 Disarming Peace Ocer Person
76-5-102.9 Propelling Bodily Substance Person
76-5-103 Aggravated Assault Person
76-5-103.5 Aggravated Assault by Prisoner Person
76-5-105 Mayhem Person
76-5-106 Harassment Person
76-5-106.5 Stalking Person
76-5-107.1 Threat Against School Person
76-5-107.3 Threat of Terrorism Person
76-5-107.5 Hazing Person
76-5-108 Violation of Protective Order Person
76-5-109 Child Abuse Person
76-5-109.2 Aggravated Child Abuse Person
76-5-109.3 Child Abandonment Person
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 56
Code Citation Description Category
76-5-110 Abuse or Neglect of Child with a Disability Person
76-5-111 Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult Person
76-5-111.2 Aggravated Abuse of a Vulnerable Adult Person
76-5-111.3 Personal Dignity Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult Person
76-5-111.4 Financial Expoitation of a Vulnerable Adult Other; Financial Offense
76-5-112 Reckless Endangerment Person
76-5-112.5 Endangerment of Child or Elder Adult Person, Death
76-5-113 Surreptitious Administration of a Substance Person
76-5-114 Commission of Domestic Violence in Presence of a Child Person
76-5-202(3)(b),(e) Aggravated Murder (Non-Capital) Murder
76-5-202 Attempted Aggravated Murder (punishible under 76-4-102(1)(a) or (2)) Murder
76-5-203 Murder Murder
76-5-203 Attempted Murder Person
76-5-205 Manslaughter Death
76-5-206 Negligent Homicide Death
76-5-207 Negligent Operation of Vehicle Resulting in Death Death
76-5-207.5 Automobile Homicide Involving Text Messaging/Elect. Mail Death
76-5-208 Child Abuse Homicide Death
76-5-209 Homicide by Assault Death
76-5-301 Kidnapping Person
76-5-301.1 Child Kidnapping Person
76-5-303 Custodial Interference Person
76-5-304 Unlawful Detention or Unlawful Detention of a Minor Person
76-5-308 Human Tracking for Labor Person
76-5-308.1 Human Tracking for Sexual Exploitation Person, Sex Offense
76-5.308.3 Human Smuggling Person
76-5-308.5 Human Tracking of a Child Person
76-5-309 Human Tracking and Human Smuggling Person
76-5-310 Aggravated Human Tracking Person, Sex Offense, Death
76-5-310.1 Aggravated Human Smuggling Person
76-5-311 Human Tracking of a Vulnerable Adult Person, Sex Offense
76-5-401 Unlawful Sexual Activity with a Minor Person, Sex Offense
76-5-401.1 Sexual Abuse of a Minor Person, Sex Offense
76-5-401.2 Unlawful Sexual Conduct with 16 or 17 year old Person, Sex Offense
76-5-401.3 Unlawful Adolescent Sexual Activity Person, Sex Offense
76-5-402 Rape Person, Sex Offense
76-5-402.1 Rape of a Child Person, Sex Offense
76-5-402.2 Object Rape Person, Sex Offense
76-5-402.3 Object Rape of a Child Person, Sex Offense
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 57
Code Citation Description Category
76-5-403 Forcible Sodomy Person, Sex Offense
76-5-403.1 Sodomy on a Child Person, Sex Offense
76-5-404 Forcible Sexual Abuse Person, Sex Offense
76-5-404.1 Sexual Abuse of a Child Person, Sex Offense
76-5-405 Aggravated Sexual Assault Person, Sex Offense
76-5-412 Custodial Sexual Relations Person, Sex Offense
76-5-413 Custodial Sexual Relations-Youth Receiving State Services Person, Sex Offense
76-5-702 Prohibition on Female Genital Mutilation Person
76-5b-201 Sexual Exploitation of a Minor Person, Sex Offense
76-5b-202 Sexual Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult Person, Sex Offense
76-5b-203 Distribution of an Intimate Image Person
76-5b-203.5 Misuse of Intimate Image During Criminal Action Person
76-5b-204 Sexual Extortion / Aggravated Sexual Extortion Person, Sex Offense
76-5b-205 Unlawful Distribution of Counterfeit Image Person
76-6-102 Arson Other
76-6-103 Aggravated Arson Person
76-6-105 Causing a Catastrophe Person
76-6-106 Criminal Mischief Other
76-6-106 Domestic Violence Criminal Mischief (77-36-1(4)(m)) Person
76-6-107 Grati Other
76-6-109 Offenses Against Timber, Mining, Agricultural Industries Other
76-6-110 Offenses Committed Against Animal Enterprise Other
76-6-111 Wanton Destruction of Livestock Other
76-6-202 Burglary of a Dwelling Person
76-6-202 Burglary of a Non-Dwelling Other
76-6-203 Aggravated burglary Person
76-6-204.5 Burglary of a Railroad Car Other
76-6-206 Criminal Trespass Other
76-6-206 Domestic Violence Criminal Trespass (77-36-1(4)(m)) Person
76-6-301 Robbery Person
76-6-302 Aggravated robbery Person
76-6-404 Theft Other
76-6-404.5 Wrongful Appropriation Other
76-6-404.7 Theft of Motor Vehicle Fuel Other
76-6-405 Theft by Deception Other; Financial Offense
76-6-406 Theft by Extortion Other; Financial Offense
76-6-406(2)(a) Theft by Extortion Causing Harm Person; Financial Offense
76-6-406(2)(b) Theft by Extortion Involving Physical Restraint Person; Financial Offense
76-6-407 Theft of Lost or Misdelivered Property Other
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 58
Code Citation Description Category
76-6-408 Theft by Receiving Stolen Property Other; Financial Offense
76-6-409 Theft of Services Other; Financial Offense
76-6-409.3 Theft of Utility or Cable Television Services Other
76-6-409.6 Telecommunications Fraud Other
76-6-409.7 Possession of Unlawful Telecommunication Device Other
76-6-409.8 Sale of Unlawful Telecommunication Device Other
76-6-409.9 Manufacture of Unlawful Telecommunication Device Other
76-6-410(1) Theft by Executory Use Other
76-6-410(2) Theft Pursuant to a Rental Agreement Other
76-6-410.5 Theft of a Rental Vehicle Other
76-6-413 Release of Fur-Bearing Animals Other
76-6-501 Forgery Other
76-6-502 Possession of a Forged Writing or Forged Device Other
76-6-503.5 Fraudulent Handling or Recordable Writings Other
76-6-503.7(2)(b) Filing a Record With Intent to Defraud Other
76-6-504 Tampering with Records Other
76-6-505 Issuing a Bad Check or Draft Other
76-6-506.2 Unlawful Use of a Financial Transaction Card Other
76-6-506.3 Unlawful Acquisition, Possession or Transfer of FTC Other
76-6-506.6 Unauthorized Factoring of Credit Card Sales Drafts Other
76-6-506.7 Obtaining Encoded Info. on FTC With Intent to Defraud Other
76-10-508 Bribery of or Receiving Bribe by Person in Appraisal Business Other
76-6-509 Bribery of a Labor Ocial Other
76-6-510 Bribe Received by a Labor Ocial Other
76-6-511 Defrauding Creditors Other
76-6-512 Acceptance of Deposit by Insolvent Financial Institution Other
76-6-513 Unlawful Dealing of Property by a Fiduciary Other; Financial Offense
76-6-514 Bribery or Threat to Inuence Contest Other
76-6-516 Convey Real Estate by Married Man w/o Wife’s Consent Other
76-6-518 Criminal Simulation Other
76-6-520 Criminal Usury Other
76-6-521 False or Fraudulent Insurance Act Other; Financial Offense
76-6-522 Equity Skimming of a Vehicle Other
76-6-523 Obstructing Leasing Real Property for Nat. Res. Production Other
76-6-602 Retail Theft Other
76-6-703 Computer Crime Other; Financial Offense
76-6-903 Cultural Sites Protection Violation Other
76-6-1002 Damage to a Mail Receptacle Other
76-6-1003 Mail Theft Other
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 59
Code Citation Description Category
76-6-1102 Identity Fraud Other
76-6-1204 Mortgage Fraud Other; Financial Offense
76-6-1303 Unlawful Poss/Sale/Use of Autom. Sales Suppress. Device Other
76-6a-4 Pyramid Scheme Other
76-7-101 Bigamy Other
76-7-101.5 Child Bigamy Person
76-7-201 Criminal Nonsupport Other
76-7-203 Sale of a Child Person
76-7-310.5 Performing Abortion Using Prohibited Procedures Other
76-7-314 Performing Unlawful Abortion Other
76-8-103 Bribery to Inuence Ocial or Political Actions Other
76-8-105 Receiving or Soliciting a Bribe Other
76-8-107 Alteration of Proposed Legislative Bill or Resolution Other
76-8-108 Alteration of Enrolled Legislative Bill or Resolution Other
76-8-303 Prevention of Legislature or Public Servants from Meeting Other
76-8-305 Interference with Peace Ocer Other
76-8-305.5 Failure to Stop at the Command of a Peace Ocer Other
76-8-306 Obstruction of Justice Other
76-8-306.5 Obstructing Service of BOPP Warrant or OSC Other
76-8-309 Escape Other
76-8-309(2) Aggravated Escape Person
76-8-311.1 Transp. Firearm, Ammun., Dang. Weapon in Secure Area Other
76-8-311.3 Items Prohibited in Correctional & Mental Health Facilities Other
76-8-312 Bail Jumping Other
76-8-315 Assault on Elected Ocial – Attempt/Cause Bodily Injury Person
76-8-316 Inuence/Impede/Retaliate Against Judge or BOPP Memb. Person
76-8-318 Assault or Threat of Violence Against Child Welfare Worker Person
76-8-402 Misusing Public Monies Other
76-8-403 Failure to Keep and Pay Over Public Monies Other
76-8-404 Making Prot Public Monies Other
76-8-412 Stealing/Destroying/Mutilating Public Records Other
76-8-414 Recording False or Forged Instruments Other
76-8-418 Damaging a Jail Other
76-8-502 Making False/Inconsistent Material Statement Other
76-8-508 Tampering with a Witness Other
76-8-508.3 Retaliation Against a Witness, Victim or Informant Person
76-8-508.5 Tampering with a Juror Other
76-8-508.5(2)(c) Tampering with a Juror – Threat to Injure Person or Prop. Person
76-8-509 Bribery to Dismiss Criminal Proceeding Other
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 60
Code Citation Description Category
76-8-509 Extortion to Dismiss Criminal Proceeding – Force or Threat Person
76-8-510.5 Tampering with Evidence Other
76-8-802 Destruction of Prop.- Interfere Prep. for Defense/War Other
76-8-803 Causing/Omitting to Note Defects- Articles for Defense/War Other
76-8-902 Advocating Criminal Syndicalism or Sabotage Other
76-8-903 Assemble Advocating Criminal Syndicalism or Sabotage Other
76-8-1101 Failure to File Tax Return False Info; Evading Tax Other
76-8-1203 Public Assistance Fraud Other
76-8-1204 Public Assistance Fraud Other
76-8-1205 Public Assistance Fraud Other
76-8-1301 False Statements – Unemployment Compensation Other
76-9-101 Riot Other
76-9-102 Disorderly Conduct Other
76-9-101(3) Felony Riot Person
76-9-105 Making False Alarm Other
76-9-201 Electronic Communication Harassment Person
76-9-202 Emergency Reporting Abuse Other
76-9-301 Animal Cruelty Other
76-9-301.1 Dog Fighting Other
76-9-301.3 Game Fowl Fighting Other
76-9-304 Human Death by Vicious Animal Death
76-9-306 Causing Injury or Death to Police Service Animal Other
76-9-704 Abuse or Desecration of Dead Human Body Other
76-10-204 Damaging Bridge, Dam, Canal, or Water-Related Structure Other
76-10-306 Explosives Violation Other
76-10-306(4) First Degree Explosives Violation Person
76-10-307 Unlawful Delivery of Explosive Device to Common Carrier Other
76-10-402 Manufacture, Poss., Sale, Use of Weapon Mass Destr. Other
76-10-403 Manufacture, Poss., Sale, Use of Hoax Weapon Mass Des. Other
76-10-503 Poss./Transfer/Purch. Dang. Weapon by Restr. Person Specic 3rd
76-10-504(3) Poss. Short Barrel Rie Other
76-10-504(4) Poss. Concealed Firearm- Commission of Violent Felony Person
76-10-506 Threatening/Using Dangerous Weapon in a Fight/Quarrel Person
76-10-508 Discharge of Firearm From Vehicle Person
76-10-508.1 Felony Discharge of a Firearm Person
76-10-509.4 Poss. Sawed-off Shotgun/Fully Automatic Weap. by Minor Other
76-10-509.5 Providing Sawed-off Shotgun/Fully Automatic to Minor Other
76-10-509.6 Parent of Guardian Providing Firearm to Violent Minor Other
76-10-509.9 Sale of Firearm to Juvenile Other
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 61
Code Citation Description Category
76-10-527(2) Making False Statement – Criminal Background Check Other
76-10-527(3) Weapons Violation by Dealer Other
76-10-527(4) Purchase Firearm – Intent to Provide to Ineligible Person Other
76-10-703 Fraudulent Documents – Organization/Incr. Capital Stock Other
76-10-706 Unlawful Acts by Director, Ocer or Agent Other
76-10-920 Illegal Anticompetitive Activities Other
76-10-1103 Gambling Fraud Other
76-10-1104 Gambling Promotion Other
76-10-1105 Possessing Gambling Device or Record Other
76-10-1109 Condence Game Violation Other
76-10-1204 Distributing Pornographic Material Other
76-10-1205 Inducing Acceptance of Pornographic Material Other
76-10-1206 Dealing in Material Harmful to a Minor Person
76-10-1214 Conspiracy to Commit Pornographic and Harmful Materials Other
76-10-1222 Distribution of Pornographic Film Other
76-10-1305 Exploiting Prostitution Person
76-10-1306 Aggravated Exploitation of Prostitution Person
76-10-1309 Prostitution Offense by HIV Positive Individual Person
76-10-1504 Bus Hijacking Person
76-10-1505 Discharge Firearms/Hurl Missiles - Buses & Terminals Person
76-10-1507 Carry Concealed Dang. Weap./Haz. Mat. - Buses & Term. Other
76-10-1508 Theft of Baggage or Cargo Other
76-10-1603 Pattern of Unlawful Activity Other
76-10-1801 Communications Fraud Other; Financial Offense
76-10-1903 Money Laundering Other; Financial Offense
76-10-1906 Failure to Report by Financial Institution Other
76-10-2002 Burglary of Research Facility Other
76-10-2402 Commercial Terrorism Other
76-10-2801 Vehicle Compartment for Contraband Other
76-10-2901 Transporting or Harboring Aliens Other
77-23a-4 Interception of Communication Other
77-23a-5 Trac in Intercepting Devices Other
77-23b-2 Interference with Access to Stored Communication Other
77-36-1(4)(m) Domestic Violence Criminal Trespass (77-6-206) Person
77-41-107 Failure to Register – Sex or Kidnap Offenses Other
78A-2-203 Poss. Dang. Weap. in Secure Area est. by Jud. Council Other
78B-1-125 Certifying Excessive Witness or Juror Fees Other
78B-7-802 Violation of Condition for Release After Domestic Violence Person
78B-7-803 Violation of Pretrial Protective Order Person
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 62
Code Citation Description Category
78B-7-804 Violation of a Protective Order (Domestic Violence) Person
Sex offenses are categorized by a letter, A through J, which corresponds with the appropriate crime
category column on the sex offense matrix (Form 3). To nd the appropriate crime category column on
the sex offense matrix, simply nd the column letter matching the letter indicated on this list. Unlike the
categorization listing for general offenses, the sex offense category listing provides the specic column
on the matrix, not simply the general category (murder, death, person, possession only). Therefore, the
sex offense category listing is more specic than the general listing and includes inchoate offenses:
attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation.
Ordinarily, inchoate offenses are penalized at one level lower than the completed offense, e.g., 2nd degree felony Forcible Sexual Abuse is lowered to 3rd degree
felony Attempted Forcible Sexual Abuse. See Utah Code § 76-4-102. However, within the sex offenses there are a number of exceptions to this general rule. For
example, Rape of a Child is a 1st degree felony with mandatory prison of 25 years to life. Attempted Rape of a Child is not a 2nd degree felony; rather it is a 1st
degree felony with mandatory prison and an indeterminate range of 15 years to life. Conspiracy to Commit Rape of a Child, on the other hand, is a 1st degree
felony with no mandatory prison and indeterminate range of 3 years to life while Solicitation to Commit Rape of a Child is a 1st degree felony with mandatory
prison and an indeterminate range of 15 years to life. Due to these distinctions between some sex offenses, regularly refer to the following listing to assure that
the correct crime category column is used when calculating the guidelines recommendation.
Code Citation Description Matrix Column
76-4-401 Enticing a minor over the internet – rst degree felony E
76-4-401 Enticing a minor over the internet – second degree felony H
76-4-401 Enticing a minor over the internet – third degree felony I
76-4-401 Enticing a minor over the internet – class A misdemeanor J
76-5-301.1 Child kidnapping A, B, or C
76-5-301.1
1
Attempted child kidnapping G
76-5-301.1
3
Conspiracy to commit child kidnapping G
76-5-301.1 Solicitation to commit child kidnapping H
76-5-302 Aggravated kidnapping A, B, or C
76-5-302 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit aggravated kidnapping H
76-5-308.1 Human Tracking for Sexual Exploitation H
76-5-310 Aggravated Human Tracking for Sexual Exploitation F
76-5-311 Human Tracking for Sexual Exploitation of a Vulnerable Adult F
76-5-401 Unlawful sexual activity with a minor I
Addendum C: Categorization of Sex Offenses
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 63
Code Citation Description Matrix Column
76-5-401 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit unlawful sexual activity with a minor J
76-5-401.1 Sexual abuse of a minor J
76-5-401.1(3)(b) Sexual abuse of a minor student I
76-5-401.2 Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old I
76-5-401.2 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old J
76-5-401.2(3)(a) Unlawful sexual conduct with a 16 or 17 year old student I
76-5-401.3(a),(b) Unlawful Adolescent Sexual Activity (Third Degree Felony) I
76-5-402 Rape F (A, B, or C)
76-5-402
1
Attempted rape G
76-5-402
3
Conspiracy to commit rape G
76-5-402 Solicitation to commit rape H
76-5-402.1 Rape of a child 25 Years- Life
76-5-402.1
1, 2
Attempted rape of a child A, B, C or E
76-5-402.1
3
Conspiracy to commit rape of a child G
76-5-402.1 Solicitation to commit rape of a child A, B, C, or E
76-5-402.2 Object rape F (A, B, or C)
76-5-402.2
1
Attempted object rape G
76-5-402.2
3
Conspiracy to commit object rape G
76-5-402.2 Solicitation to commit object rape H
76-5-402.3 Object rape of a child 25 Years- Life
76-5-402.3
1, 2
Attempted rape of a child A, B, C, or E
76-5-402.3
3
Conspiracy to commit rape of a child G
76-5-402.3 Solicitation to commit rape of a child A, B, C, or E
76-5-403(3) Forcible sodomy F (A, B, or C)
76-5-403(3)
1
Attempted forcible sodomy G
76-5-403(3)
3
Conspiracy to commit forcible sodomy G
76-5-403(3) Solicitation to commit forcible sodomy H
76-5-403.1 Sodomy on a child 25 Years- Life
76-5-403.1
1, 2
Attempted sodomy on a child A, B, C, or E
76-5-403.1
3
Conspiracy to commit sodomy on a child G
76-5-403.1 Solicitation to commit sodomy on a child A, B, C, or E
76-5-404 Forcible sexual abuse A, H
76-5-404 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit forcible sex. abuse I
76-5-404.1 Aggravated sexual abuse of a child A, B, or C
76-5-404.1
1
Attempted aggravated sexual abuse of a child G
76-5-404.1
3
Conspiracy to commit aggravated sexual abuse of a child G
76-5-404.1 Solicitation to commit aggravated sexual abuse of a child H
76-5-404.1 Sexual abuse of a child H
76-5-404.1 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit sex. abuse of child I
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 64
Code Citation Description Matrix Column
76-5-405 Aggravated sexual assault A, B, or C
76-5-405 1 Attempted aggravated sexual assault G
76-5-405 3 Conspiracy to commit aggravated sexual assault G
76-5-405 Solicitation to commit aggravated sexual assault H
76-5-412(2) Custodial sexual relations (victim is 18 or older) I
76-5-412(2) Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit custodial sexual relations (victim is 18 or older) J
76-5-412(2) Custodial sexual relations (victim is younger than 18) H
76-5-412(2)
Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit custodial sexual relations (victim is younger
than 18)
I
76-5-412(4) Custodial sexual misconduct (victim is 18 or older) J
76-5-412(4) Custodial sexual misconduct (victim is younger than 18) I
76-5-412(4)
Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit custodial sexual misconduct (victim is younger
than 18)
J
76-5-413(2) Custodial sexual relations with a youth receiving state services (victim is 18 or older) I
76-5-413(2)
Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit custodial sexual relations with a youth receiving
state services (victim is 18 or older)
J
76-5-413(2) Custodial sexual relations with a youth receiving state services (victim is younger than 18) H
76-5-413(2)
Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit custodial sexual relations with a youth receiving
state services (victim is younger than 18)
I
76-5-413(4) Custodial sexual misconduct with a youth receiving state services (victim is 18 or older) J
76-5-413(4) Custodial sexual misconduct with a youth receiving state services (victim is younger than 18) I
76-5-413(4)
Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit custodial sexual misconduct with a youth
receiving state services (victim is younger than 18)
J
76-5b-201 Sexual exploitation of a minor H
76-5b-201 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit sexual exploitation of a minor I
76-5b-202 Sexual exploitation of a vulnerable adult I
76-5b-204(3)(i) Sexual Extortion / Aggravated Sexual Extortion H, I, or J
76-7-102 Incest I
76-7-102 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit incest J
76-9-702 Third degree lewdness
4
I
76-9-702.1 Sexual battery J
76-9-702.5 Lewdness involving a child I or J
76-9-702.7 Voyeurism I or J
76-10-1206 Dealing in Materials Harmful to Minor by Person 18+ I or J
76-10-1306 Aggravated exploitation of prostitution F or H
76-10-1306 Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit aggravated exploitation prostitution I or H
1 See Utah Code § 76-4-102(2) 2 See Utah Code § 76-3-406(10) 3 See Utah Code § 76-4-202(2)
4 If an individual is convicted for an offense of Lewdness, a class B misdemeanor, Form 6 - The Misdemeanor Matrix should be used.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 65
Addendum D: Stakeholder Policy Considerations
These guidelines are a cooperative venture. The effort is to provide a mechanism for communication and improvement of key
policy rather than to dictate practice by statute or rule. For the guidelines to function well, several policies are important. The
policies do not need to be implemented exactly as stated, but their intent is critical.
A. Prosecution
Prosecutors may use the guidelines to determine the implications of charging and plea negotiations. The guidelines are
intended to make the system predictable by making explicit the sentence an individual with a given background is likely to
receive. Prosecutors should make it a policy to explain to the victim the effect of charging and plea negotiations in each
individual case.
B. Presentence Investigations
The Department of Corrections determines supervision and presentence investigation standards pursuant to Utah Code §
77-18-109(1) and may consider type of offense, risk and needs assessment, demand for service, the availability of agency
resources, public safety, and other criteria established by the department.
The Department of Corrections revised presentence investigation standards and report formats during 2019. The formats
and eligibility criteria are intended to produce reports in a more evidenced-based and objective approach, and to better meet
demand for services through prioritization of referral criteria. These formats include:
1. Full-version: felony offenses for moderate- or higher-risk individuals; all sex offenses class A and higher regardless of
risk level; applicable guideline forms
2. Short-version: felony offenses for low-risk individuals; class A offenses for moderate- or higher-risk individuals;
applicable guideline forms
3. Low-risk memo: class A offenses for low-risk individuals; excluding sex offenses; guideline forms NOT included; a low-
risk memo is not a presentence investigation report
Presentence investigations by AP&P are conducted on individuals convicted of a felony level offense or Class A offense
and identied as moderate- or high-risk to re-offend by a validated screening or assessment tool such as the LSI-SV or LS/
RNR. The presentence investigation should include a summary of the validated risk and needs assessment tool and other
assessment(s) as appropriate to assist in structuring supervision and treatment accordingly.
An individual identied as low-risk will not normally receive a full validated risk and needs assessment, either by AP&P or
another supervising agency, as supervision services are generally not targeted towards low-risk individuals.
All individuals who are identied as moderate- or high-risk to re-offend on a validated screening tool receive more
comprehensive assessment(s). If a validated screening tool has identied an individual convicted of a Class B misdemeanor
offender as moderate- or high-risk to re-offend who is not eligible for supervision by AP&P, courts may request additional
assessments from county or private agencies. All recommendations included in these guidelines with specic reference to
AP&P apply equally to state, county or private probation agencies.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 66
Presentence investigations should have the applicable guidelines Forms 1 – 6 attached when they are sent to the sentencing
judge, the prosecutor, and the individual convicted of a crime in accordance with Utah Code § 77-18-109 and Utah Code
Jud. Admin. Rule 4-203. The recommendations made to the judge should conform to the guidelines unless aggravating or
mitigating circumstances are documented.
Presentence Reports and Progress/Violation Reports may contain the results of additional assessments and/or tools utilized
by AP&P in developing and updating an individual’s Case Action Plan. The concepts outlined in Behavior Management Tools
1 - 6 may be incorporated into future Presentence Reports and Progress/Violation Reports as appropriate. Tools 2 - 6 are not
anticipated to be presented at the time of sentencing, but may be included in Progress/Violation Reports.
C. Sentencing Judges
Sentencing judges may require that Behavior Management Forms 1 - 7 be attached to all district court presentence
investigations. Judges are encouraged to sentence within the guidelines unless they nd aggravating or mitigating
circumstances justifying departure from Behavior Management Forms 1 - 7. These circumstances should be stated in open
court and may be included on the judgment and commitment order.
Sentencing of misdemeanor offenses should consider the seriousness and proportionality of misdemeanor offenses in
relation to felony offenses. Generally, a sentence for a misdemeanor offense should be less severe than that which is
recommended for a felony offense. Supervision and treatment resources should then be prioritized based upon the results of
a validated criminogenic risk and needs assessment, not the presenting offense.
The Commission recommends that future resources appropriated for supervision and treatment be allocated using a data-
driven, evidence-based, and comprehensive approach.
D. Board of Pardons and Parole
The Board of Pardons and Parole Board requires an updated guidelines form to be completed on each individual appearing for
an original hearing. In many cases, additional events have occurred between the time of the court’s rst sentencing decision
and the rst appearance before the Board (e.g., new convictions, program successes or failures, escapes, etc.). Except where
there are aggravating or mitigating factors, the Board is encouraged to make decisions compatible with the guidelines.
A statement of general rationale for Board decisions is provided to the individual and made available to the public at www.
bop.utah.gov. The Board is currently in the process of developing a structured decision making tool and adopting the ten
practice targets identied by the National Parole Resource Center. As Board practices are further developed and delineated,
the guidelines should be updated to reect practices accordingly.
If an individual was sentenced prior to October 1, 2015, the 2014 Utah Sentencing Guideline matrix will be used. If an
individual was sentenced on or after October 1, 2015, the guideline calculation will be based on the version of the Utah
Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the original court sentencing date.
An individual’s guideline calculations will be based on the version of the sentencing guidelines that govern on the date the
individual was sentenced. If multiple sentencing dates are associated with the Judgment and Commitment(s) (J&C) received
by the Board on the same day, the last case sentencing date associated with the J&C will be used. This calculation will remain
in force unless or until a new J&C is received for an offense under Board jurisdiction.
An original court sentencing date is either the date an individual is initially sentenced directly to prison or the date an
individual receives a suspended sentence to prison and is granted probation.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 67
For those who have a hearing on or after January 1, 2017, the Board will use the guideline based on the protocol outlined
above. If multiple Judgment & Commitments are associated with the prison commitment, the most recent sentencing date
will govern for all offenses associated with the current prison commitment unless the offense was committed while the
individual was in prison.
If the individual committed the offense while in prison, a new, separate guideline is calculated for the new prison
commitment. The new offense is classied as an additional primary offense without changing the adjusted commitment date.
The new offense guideline is added to the individual’s prior guideline, resulting in a single, combined guideline.
If the individual’s guideline from the prior offense has passed, the new offense guideline will start on the date the new
sentence occurred.
E. Alternate Probation Providers
In addition to AP&P, county and private probation providers also provide supervision services through the courts. Neither
county nor private probation services should be utilized to provide more intensive supervision than is recommended for AP&P.
For instance, where “court” supervision is recommended for a low-risk/low-need individual, county or private probation should
not provide supervision services. “Court” supervision refers to a minimal level of administrative supervision services, which
generally involves the setting of a review hearing on a compliance calendar. Where “supervised” probation is indicated, the
supervision services may be provided by AP&P, county or private probation providers.
The recommendations for AP&P specically referenced in the guidelines apply equally regardless of the agency providing
supervision services. This policy is now explicitly stated and further claried in Utah Code § 77-18-1 (2)(b)(iv) and (c) pursuant
to House Bill 3004 of the 2016 Third Special Session of the Utah Legislature.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 68
Broadly speaking, an evidence-based sentencing framework includes:
Goals
• Risk Management
• Risk Reduction
• Restitution
Process
• Swift
• Certain
• Consistent
• Proportionate
• Fundamentally Fair
Tools
• Policies, Grids & Guidelines
• Risk & Needs Assessments
• Graduated Continuum of Rewards, Incentives, Services & Sanctions
A. Goals
1. RISK MANAGEMENT
The goal of risk management is addressed by imposing a punishment or penalty that is proportionate to the gravity of the
offense and the culpability of the individual. This goal has largely been the focus of our criminal justice system and is still
fundamental to ensuring public safety. Risk management includes the broader objective of holding individuals accountable
and providing appropriate incapacitation and punishment for the violation of laws.
The brevity of explanation of this goal should not be viewed as minimizing its importance. Risk Management continues to be
a legitimate goal of sentencing.
2. RISK REDUCTION
Risk reduction is addressed through the appropriate identication and reduction of an individual’s criminal risk factors.
Because this goal has not been addressed comprehensively or structured previously, the guidelines provide greater detail and
explanation of this goal than the other two.
It is important to note that the term “rehabilitation” is not entirely interchangeable with “risk reduction,” because it incorrectly
suggests that most individuals were once pro-social or “habilitated” and simply need to be restored to that pre-existing
Addendum E: Evidence-Based Framework
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 69
condition. “Risk reduction” or “recidivism reduction” more appropriately identies that crime reduction is the objective in this
context. As such, risk reduction not only includes objectives which increase the functioning of an individual, but also increase
public safety by reducing the likelihood of ongoing criminal activity.
Criminal risk factors are identied through the use of validated risk and needs assessments. Validated assessments identify
the individual’s level of criminogenic risk and criminogenic need.
Supervision and treatment resources should then be tailored based on the risk and needs
assessment, not the presenting offense.
Of particular importance is identifying those individuals for whom risk reduction programming and/or interventions are
unnecessary. Supervision and treatment resources should be prioritized for high- and moderate-risk level individuals, as an
individual identied as low-risk and low-need has few criminogenic risks and needs which can be targeted for reduction.
Including low-risk and low-need individuals in programming with higher risk individuals not only is an inecient use of limited
resources, but can have the unintended consequence of increasing low-risk individual’s criminogenic risk factors.
Responsivity factors should also be identied and considered in tailoring available services, as how the programming is
delivered is of signicant importance in improving outcomes.
Effective programming must then address the identied individual criminal risk factors and incorporate a cognitive behavioral
approach. Program integrity should be regularly monitored to ensure quality implementation and improvement as well. The
use of the Correctional Program Checklist to evaluate implementation of evidence-based practices in programs provided in
connection with the criminal justice system is recommended.
The goal of risk reduction was previously assumed to occur through the philosophy of general and/or specic deterrence
through the use of incarceration. Research does not support commonly-held assumptions regarding deterrence. The impact
that incarceration has had upon the reduction in index crime rates since 1990 has been modest at best. Numerous other
factors contributed to a nationwide reduction in index crime rates, which do not correlate with incarceration trends.
Moreover, while incarceration has demonstrable incapacitation effects during the period of
incarceration, it has minimal specic deterrence effects on the individual upon release. Incarceration
itself may actually increase criminal risk factors, thereby contributing to recidivism rates for lower-
risk individuals. To the extent possible, low-risk individuals should be excluded from higher-risk
populations, both in an incarcerated setting as well as in supervision and treatment settings.
Risk reduction is a legitimate but somewhat overlooked goal of sentencing. Where incarceration is not warranted based on
the severity of the offense and the culpability of the individual, incarceration should not be viewed as a risk reduction tool.
Where incarceration is warranted, programming should target criminogenic factors.
The goal of risk reduction extends beyond the limited term of incarceration and seeks to reduce the likelihood of future
criminal activity through appropriate programming.
3. RESTITUTION
Restitution is addressed through the repayment of damages to the community or to victims resulting from an offense.
Community service is often appropriately ordered in lieu of restitution. Restitution or community service continues to be a
fundamental goal of sentencing. In some instances, the other two goals of sentencing may operate in conict with the goal of
obtaining restitution:
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 70
• the imposition of incarceration itself can prevent employment, which could impact the payment of restitution;
• a felony conviction itself can prohibit obtaining both employment and housing;
• the amount of income available to an individual may be insucient to sustain self-suciency and repay restitution.
Sentencing, as well as enforcement of supervision conditions, should consider whether an individual is capable of meeting all
of the conditions imposed immediately; or whether prioritization of short-term and long-term goals should be distinguished.
Concepts of “learned helplessness” and “ratio burdens” should be considered in the development
of realistic goals for supervision conditions. Imposing more conditions than can realistically be
addressed in the short term may mean that long-term goals are never met.
The brevity of explanation of this goal as well as the recognition that restitution may be a long-term goal should not be viewed
as minimizing its importance. Rather, the Sentencing Commission emphasizes the importance of structuring sentencing and
supervision terms in such a manner that each goal is meaningfully addressed.
B. Process
An evidence-based approach to violations of supervision conditions provides a response that is swift, certain, consistent,
proportionate, and fundamentally fair.
1. SWIFT, CERTAIN, CONSISTENT, PROPORTIONATE
Behavior modication research clearly indicates that the effectiveness of a reward or a sanction
decreases exponentially as more time passes following the behavior. Behavior modication
research also clearly indicates that both rewards and sanctions should be certain. The certainty
of a sanction establishes a credible and consistent threat, creating a clear deterrent due to the
denite nature of the response.
The certainty of reinforcements for positive behavior is equally important. Positive reinforcements should be provided at
a Fixed Ratio 1 (FR1) schedule, meaning that after each occurrence of the desired behavior or skill, some reinforcement
(even verbal praise) is provided. In relation to sanctions applied, positive reinforcements should be provided at a ratio of
approximately 4:1 (four incentives for every one sanction). It may seem counterintuitive to impose a sanction and provide
a reward simultaneously. However, for behavior modication purposes, positive behavior should actually be monitored and
rewarded four times as much as negative behavior.
The proportionality or magnitude of the reinforcer/punisher should also be commensurate to the precipitating behavior. The
general rule is that moderate responses are best. If a sanction is too weak, the individual may habituate to that sanction and
it will never produce the desired effect of reducing the precipitating behavior. If a sanction is too severe, there is a “ceiling
effect,” as there is no room to graduate the sanction in the future if violations escalate.
It is the recommendation of the Sentencing Commission that the use of practices which do not incorporate these basic
principles of evidence-based practices be discontinued.
2. FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 71
Beyond the basic concepts of swift, certain, and proportionate responses is the goal that both sentencing and enforcement of
supervision terms should be imposed through a process which is fundamentally fair. Utah Supreme Court Justice Matthew B.
Durrant explained the concept of “Procedural Fairness” in his 2014 State of the Judiciary Address:
“The elements of procedural fairness are voice, neutrality, and respect. Voice means the ability of court participants
to express their viewpoints. In other words, the judge asks for input and actively listens. Neutrality means just that –
consistently applied legal principles, unbiased decision makers, and a ‘transparency’ in how decisions are made. Lastly,
respect, meaning individuals are treated with dignity and their rights are armatively protected. It means that judges not only
protect the rights of litigants, but explain that is what they are doing. It makes a difference.”
Extensive research conrms that how people are treated in court affects not only attitudes about
the court experience but also their willingness to comply with court orders. People who perceive
they have been treated in procedurally fair ways demonstrate signicantly higher levels of
compliance with court orders.
These principles apply equally to anyone in a position of authority, whether a Judge, the Board of Pardons and Parole,
probation and parole ocers, or others seeking compliance with orders or laws.
C. Tools
1. POLICIES
The policies contained in these guidelines, in conjunction with the current grids and matrices are intended to provide a
broader set of tools for use by the sentencing authority. Such tools are intended to provide a higher degree of transparency,
greater clarity as to the sentencing process, and better informed decision-making.
2. GRIDS & GUIDELINES
a. Risk Management Forms
The goal of risk management is addressed in Forms 1 - 6, which provide an objective analysis of the severity of the offense
and the culpability of the individual. The forms provide an initial recommendation at the point of intersection for imprisonment,
intermediate sanction, or regular probation. The length of stay indicated in each box is an initial recommendation.
b. Risk Reduction Tools
Beyond the initial determination that focuses on risk management, these guidelines also provide Structured Decision-Making
Tools that are intended to assist in reducing risk. The guidelines incorporate risk reduction in determining an appropriate
level of supervision, treatment and responses to individual behavior. Structured Decision-Making Tools 1 - 6 and referenced
addenda are intended to assist in that analysis, while still assuring sucient discretion in fashioning an appropriate sentence
and an appropriate response to individual’s behavior.
3. RISK & NEEDS ASSESSMENTS
Current research indicates that in order to improve recidivism outcomes, treatment programs must target criminogenic
needs. Eight criminogenic risks and needs, often referred to as “The Central Eight,” must be considered in order to improve
outcomes. Addendum G, Central Eight Criminal Risk Factors, provides a summary of both the criminogenic needs and
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 72
corresponding treatment targets. The Central Eight are also incorporated in Tool 1 under the label “Dynamic Factors.” Of
these eight risk and need factors, the rst four, often referred to as the “Big Four,” will have the greatest impact on individual
recidivism. The eight criminogenic risk and need factors include:
a. The Big Four
1. History of antisocial behavior (behavior that harms others, often with a lack of empathy for those harmed)
2. Antisocial personality pattern (impulsive and adventurous, pleasure seeking)
3. Antisocial cognition (attitudes, values and beliefs favorable towards crime)
4. Antisocial associates (association with pro-criminal peers)
b. The Moderate Four
5. Family/marital circumstances (poor quality relationships)
6. School/work (low levels of performance and involvement in school or at work
7. Leisure/recreation (low involvement and satisfaction in anti-criminal leisure activities
8. Substance abuse (problems with alcohol and/or other drugs)
c. Appropriate Use of Risk and Need Assessment Tools
While actuarial risk assessment tools have been in use for risk classication and management purposes since the 1970s,
risk/needs assessment tools (“RNA”) did not begin to emerge until the 1990s. The critical distinction is that current RNA tools
can identify the specic dynamic risk factors (changing and changeable) that inuence whether a particular individual is likely
to re-offend. They identify the appropriate targets for interventions which, if effective, will reduce the probability of recidivism.
Such tools are not intended to completely replace professional judgment, but to better inform decision-making.
Research has consistently conrmed that current RNA tools are more accurate than professional
judgment alone in predicting risk of recidivism. Professional judgment alone tends to over-
estimate risk and is especially prone to the use of heuristics and bias.
The diagram below is illustrative of the “Receiver Operating Curve,” generally considered the best statistical procedure for
interpreting risk:
.0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1.0
1.0
.8
.6
.4
.2
.0
SENSITIVITY
SPECIFICITY
Dependent Variable: Criterion Grouping
AREA UNDER THE CURVE
Criterion
Grouping
One Timer
Intermittent
Continual
.704
.629
.813
Area
An AUC of .50 or less represents the 50/50 chance that one could accurately predict risk to re-offend using gut instinct alone.
An AUC of.50 is illustrated by the straight diagonal line (red). An AUC of under .50 would be to the right of and below the
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 73
diagonal line. An AUC of over .50 would be to the left of and above the diagonal line. An AUC of 1.00 represents accurate
prediction 100% of the time and is illustrated by the horizontal and vertical lines on the top and left side of the square (blue).
“Expert” opinion is generally accurate 51% of the time, meaning it is only marginally better than ipping a coin. While no
tool nor human judgment is accurate 100% of the time, validated tools with illustrated AUC’s above of .629, .704, and .813
signicantly outperform the ip of a coin, gut instinct, and even “expert” opinion.
Two types of errors are relevant to risk assessment prediction: 1) Type I errors, or false positives, occur when an individual
is classied as a potential recidivist, but does not commit a new crime. 2) Type II errors, or false negatives, occur when an
individual is not classied as a potential recidivist, but does commit a new crime.
If an individual’s risk level is over-estimated and a lower-risk individual is included with higher-risk individuals in programming,
the lower-risk individual is more likely to emerge with greater risk factors than if they were left alone. The Sentencing
Commission emphasizes again that well-intentioned sanctions and services can have unintended negative impacts.
The following statement reects the Sentencing Commission’s position regarding the use of validated tools to guide decision-
making regarding risk reduction: “[g]iven the convergence between our meta-analysis and the work of Grove et al. (2000),
statistical rules ought to be employed when feasible. This is especially true for critical decisions in which false-negative
judgments can be costly. Even a small increase in accuracy is important if one is predicting suicide, domestic violence,
or post-parole adjustment.” White, J.M., et. al. (2006). “The Meta-Analysis of Clinical Judgment Project: Fifty-Six Years of
Accumulated Research on Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction.”
It is equally important to note that RNA tools were not designed to replace the proportionality and culpability analysis in
Forms 1 - 7. The tools were designed to structure supervision, treatment, and programming.
The Indiana Supreme Court case of Malenchik v. Indiana, 928 N.E.2d 564 (2010) and the Wisconsin Supreme Court case of
Wisconsin v. Loomis, 2016 WI 68 (2016) are the two cases which have addressed the appropriate use of RNA tools. Such
tools “can be signicant sources of valuable information for judicial consideration in deciding whether to suspend all or part
of a sentence, how to design a probation program for the individual, whether to assign an individual to alternative treatment
facilities or programs, and other such corollary sentencing matters.” Further, RNA tools were designed to “identify dynamic
areas of risk/needs that may be addressed by programming in order to reduce risk… but it was never designed to assist in
establishing the just penalty.”
The Loomis court further claried the context of risk reduction as one of several goals at sentencing, stating that “[b]
ecause of these disparate goals, using a risk assessment tool to determine the length and severity of a sentence is a poor
t. As scholars have observed, “[a]ssessing the risk of future crime plays no role in sentencing decisions based solely on
backward-looking perceptions of blameworthiness, . . . is not relevant to deterrence, . . . and should not be used to sentence
individuals to more time than they morally deserve.” The Loomis court further stated that “a sentencing court may consider
a [….] risk assessment at sentencing subject to the following limitations. As recognized by the Department of Corrections,
the PSI instructs that risk scores may not be used: (1) to determine whether an individual is incarcerated; or (2) to determine
the severity of the sentence. Additionally, risk scores may not be used as the determinative factor in deciding whether an
individual can be supervised safely and effectively in the community.”
d. Validated Tools in Use in Utah
Offender Criminogenic assessment tools have evolved and matured over time as research provides additional insight into
individual behavior. These tools have passed through several generations, with the rst generation being simply subjective
judgment or professional gut instinct. The assessment tool previously used in Corrections has been the LSI-R (Level of Service
Inventory Revised), which is a 3rd generation assessment tool. The LSI-R evaluates both static and dynamic risk factors.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 74
Today, 4th generation assessment tools are available that improve upon the 3rd generation tools. The 4th generation
assessment tools integrate both general and specic risk and needs components. Additionally, they include specic individual
responsivity considerations. Addendum G, The Responsivity Principle & Factors provides a complete explanation of this
principle, which is also incorporated in Tool 1 under the label “Responsivity Factors.” The addition of needs and responsivity
provides signicant improvements in addressing individual recidivism.
“Needs” evaluates the specic type and level of intervention necessary to improve the likelihood
of individual success. “Responsivity” considers individual barriers to appropriate intervention that
must be considered in relation to program delivery. Examples include mental health disorders or
low reading levels. These are issues that must be considered in the delivery of services. In short,
the way a program is delivered to a general population will likely not work with an individual, for
example, suffering from a severe mental health disorder.
The 3rd generation assessment tools primarily evaluated an individual’s risk to re-offend. The 4th generation tools still
consider risk, but add targeted service needs and an understanding of how to appropriately deliver the services. Both the 3rd
and 4th generation tools take into consideration the eight (8) criminogenic factors discussed in this manual.
With these improved assessment instruments available and validated, the Department of Corrections has moved from the
LSI-R (3rd generation) to the LS/RNR – or Risk, Need and Responsivity – assessment (4th generation). This tool provides
additional and relevant information to criminal justice decision makers and service providers.
Although the LSI tools are the primary assessment tools used by the Department of Corrections, other validated tools may be used
to improve service delivery to individuals presenting with substance use disorders, mental health disorders, and sexual offenses.
e. Re-assessment
Re-assessments should be done following a signicant success or failure or major life-changing event. Re-assessment can
provide an opportunity to evaluate any progress achieved. Criminal justice and corrections agencies should continue to
emphasize risk-reduction during supervision for maximum benet to public safety.
Case Action Plans or other programming should not be determined upon assessments which are
more than twelve (12) months old.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 75
UTILIZING THE SENTENCING AND RELEASE GUIDELINES
The Sentencing and Release Guidelines (Guidelines) are intended to help structure decision making, incorporate a rational
criminal justice philosophy, eliminate unwarranted disparity, and provide a tool to match resources with needs while
maintaining the discretion of the sentencing authority. The Guidelines do not create any right or expectation on behalf of
any individual nor do they create a liberty interest on behalf of an individual convicted of a crime. The following user guide is
intended to give a brief overview of how each participant in the criminal justice system can utilize the Guidelines.
1. Defendants
Once you are convicted of a crime (guilty plea or nding of guilt after a trial) a judge may order a presentence investigation.
A presentence investigation is used to gather information about you, present it to the judge, as well as make a sentencing
recommendation based upon the Guidelines and matrices.
• Presentence investigations should include the applicable guideline Forms 1-7.
• Recommendation made to the judge should conform to the guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating circumstances are
documented.
For more information about presentence investigations refer to page 64.
The Guidelines only work as planned when the information used is correct and reliable. Presentence investigators often only
have some of the facts that could have an impact on guideline recommendations. The following are ways you can assist the
presentence investigation:
• Completely ll out the paperwork provided to you by the agency conducting the presentence investigation;
• Provide information to the investigator that might be helpful including:
• Proof of attendance or completion of treatment;
• Proof of employment;
• Proof of education certicates or diplomas;
• Letters from treating doctors or therapists; and
• Names of people who could provide letters of reference.
If you have questions about what information is helpful in regards to sentencing you should contact your attorney. Once the
presentence investigation is complete it is important that you thoroughly review the investigative report for accuracy. If you
believe there is a mistake or something has not been reported accurately it is important to inform both your attorney and the
person preparing the report before sentencing occurs.
As part of a presentence investigation Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P) uses the Level of Services/Risk, Need and
Responsivity –Assessment (4th generation) (LS/RNR) to assess an individual’s risk of recidivism and their supervision/
treatment needs. The LS/RNR considers:
• Criminal history;
• Education/employment;
• Family/marital circumstances;
Addendum F: User Guide
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 76
• Leisure and recreation;
• Companions;
• Substance abuse issues; and
• Antisocial pattern.
For more information about why these are the factors considered refer to Addendum G. While AP&P generally uses the LS/
RNR other validated tools may be used including assessments specically designed to address individuals presenting with
substance use disorders, mental health disorders and sex offenses.
While the presentence investigator scores the appropriate matrices and gives them to the judge you may want to do this as
well to understand what the sentencing recommendation in your case might be. A step-by-step example of how to score a
matrix can be found on pages 24-25 and full instructions are on pages 12-23. Also, electronic forms that help you calculate
scores can be found at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/eForms.html.
Other important information:
• Forms 1-7 create a starting point and reect a recommendation for a typical case. However, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances and other factors can be taken into consideration by both the sentencing judge and the Board of Pardons
and Parole (Board) in making their nal decisions.
• Aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be found on Form 7.
• The Guidelines do not create any right or expectation on behalf of any individual nor do they create a liberty interest on
behalf of an individual convicted of a crime.
• If you are sent to prison, the Board will recalculate your sentencing matrix and your guidelines may change. For more
information on why the Board will recalculate your sentencing matrix see pages 86-87 for more information.
• If you are sent to prison, the presentence investigation report will also be used by the Board.
2. Victims
Sentencing guidelines in Utah are aimed at three main factors:
1) Risk management;
2) Risk reduction; and
3) Restitution for victims.
One of the most successful ways to address all three factors is the use of evidence-based sentencing. Evidence-based
sentencing uses validated tools and assessments that help identify risk – both risk management and risk reduction – as well
as address restitution.
When looking at risk, supervision and treatment resources should be prioritized for those individuals who are high-,
moderate-, or intensive-risk levels. An individual who is identied as low-risk and low-need has few criminogenic risks/
needs and therefore, there is little that can be targeted for reduction. In addition, including low-risk and low-need individuals
in programming with higher risk individuals not only is an inecient use of limited resources, but can have the unintended
consequence of increasing a low-risk individual’s criminogenic risk factors.
A presentence investigation is appropriate when an individual convicted of a crime is found to be moderate- or high-risk or is
convicted of a felony offense. There are some circumstances when a presentence investigation will be conducted for misdemeanor
offenses; for full information regarding presentence investigations see page 65. Presentence investigations may consider:
• Type of offense;
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 77
• Risk and needs assessments;
• Demand for service;
• Availability of agency resources;
• Public safety; and
• Any other criteria established by the Utah Department of Corrections.
The recommendation made to the judge should conform to the guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating circumstances
are documented.
The Guidelines only work as planned when the information used is correct and reliable. Presentence investigators may only
have some of the facts that could have an impact on guideline recommendations. Therefore, you should let the sentencing
judge know any information you think is important for him or her to consider at sentencing.
Recommendations on the matrices are determined by factors that might not always be known to victims and therefore
recommendations might not always be what is expected or anticipated. If you have questions or concerns with a sentencing
recommendation you should discuss them with the prosecutor or victim advocate before the sentencing determination is made.
Other important information:
• Forms 1-6 create a starting point and reect a recommendation for a typical case. However, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances can be taken into consideration by both the sentencing judge and the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board)
in making their nal decisions.
• Aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be found on Form 7.
• The Guidelines do not create any right or expectation on behalf of any individual nor do they create a liberty interest on
behalf of an individual convicted of a crime.
• If the individual is sent to prison, the Board will recalculate their sentencing matrix and their guidelines may change.
For more information on why the Board will recalculate an individual’s sentencing matrix see pages 86-87 for more
information.
There are many agencies and resources dedicated to victims of crime. Many police departments and prosecuting agencies
have victim advocate programs to help you through the criminal justice process. You may contact the agency in which your
crime was reported or the agency prosecuting a case for more information. In addition to police department and prosecuting
agencies, the following agencies also provide services and resources for victims:
• Utah Oce for Victims of Crime: https://justice.utah.gov/Crime/
• Utah Department of Corrections, Victim Services: https://corrections.utah.gov/index.php/victim-resources
• Utah Board of Pardons and Parole: https://bop.utah.gov/index.php/victim-info-top-public-menu
• Utah Crime Victims Legal Clinic: http://www.utahvictimsclinic.org/
3. Attorneys
Attorneys should use the Sentencing and Release Guidelines to determine the implications of charging and plea negotiations.
Attorneys can also score a matrix themselves to check the matrix score/recommendation calculated during the presentence
investigation. A step-by-step example of how to calculate a sentencing matrix can be found on pages 24-25 and full
instructions are on pages 12-23. Electronic versions of the matrix can be found at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/
eForms.html. If an attorney believes there has been a miscalculation in the matrix scoring the attorney should contact the
presentence investigator to discuss the calculation of the matrix before sentencing occurs.
Presentence investigators often have limited access to facts that could aggravate or mitigate a sentencing recommendation.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 78
It is the responsibility of defense counsel and prosecutors to ensure that any relevant aggravating and mitigating factors are
known to the sentencing authority at the time of sentencing.
Current research indicates that in order to improve recidivism outcomes, treatment programs must target criminogenic needs.
For more in-depth information about criminogenic needs and corresponding treatment targets see pages 71-74. Current risk/
needs assessment tools not only identify specic dynamic risk factors (changing and changeable) that identify whether an
individual is likely to re-offend but they also identify appropriate targets for intervention which, if effective will reduce the
probability for recidivism. For more information about risk/needs assessments see pages 7-8.
The Guidelines also include Behavior Management Tools. The Behavior Management Tools were created to give swift,
certain, consistent and proportionate responses to both compliance with, and violations of, the conditions of supervision
by integrating behavioral principals into graduated responses. Both individuals under supervision and attorneys can use the
Behavior Management Tools to anticipate incentives and sanctions. All options within the Behavior Management Tools are
dependent upon available resources and do not create a right on behalf of an individual convicted of a crime.
4. Family Members
Once a person is convicted of a crime (guilty plea or nding of guilt after a trial) a judge may order a presentence
investigation. A presentence investigation is used to gather information about an individual convicted of a crime, present
that information to a judge as well as make a recommendation for sentencing based upon the Guidelines and matrices.
Presentence investigations may consider:
• Type of offense;
• Risk and needs assessments;
• Demand for service;
• Availability of agency resources;
• Public safety; and
• Any other criteria established by the Utah Department of Corrections.
For more information about presentence investigations refer to page 65.
While the presentence investigator scores the applicable matrices and provides them to the judge family members may also
want to score a matrix to understand what the sentencing recommendation might be. A step-by-step example of how to score
a matrix can be found on pages 24-25 and full instructions are on pages 12-23. Also, electronic forms that help you calculate
scores can be found at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/eForms.html.
Other important information:
• Forms 1-6 create a starting point and reect a recommendation for a typical case. However, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances can be taken into consideration by both the sentencing judge and the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board)
in making their nal decisions.
• Aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be found on Form 7.
• The Guidelines do not create any right or expectation on behalf of any individual nor do they create a liberty interest on
behalf of an individual convicted of a crime.
• If an individual is sent to prison, the Board will recalculate their sentencing matrix and their guidelines may change.
For more information on why the Board will recalculate an individual’s sentencing matrix see pages 86-87 for more
information.
Each of the following community partners may have additional information regarding criminal cases and resources for
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 79
families of individuals convicted of crimes in Utah:
• Utah Courts: https://www.utcourts.gov/selfhelp/criminal.php
• Board of Pardons and Parole: https://bop.utah.gov/index.php/home-top-public-menu
• Utah Department of Corrections: https://corrections.utah.gov/
• Salt Lake County Probation Services: https://slco.org/criminal-justice/probation-services/
5. AP&P Agents and PSI Investigators
Presentence investigations standards are governed by Utah Code § 77-18-103 and may consider:
• Type of offense;
• Risk and needs assessments;
• Demand for service;
• Availability of agency resources;
• Public safety; and
• Any other criteria established by the Utah Department of Corrections.
Presentence investigations should include the applicable guideline Forms 1-7. The recommendation made to the judge should
conform to the Guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating circumstances are documented. For more information about
presentence investigations refer to page 65.
Aggravating or mitigating circumstances may justify departure from the Guidelines. However, Form 7 must be completed and
submitted to the sentencing judge. When reporting aggravating or mitigating circumstances on Form 7, list the page number
where information about the aggravating or mitigating circumstance(s) can be found in the presentence investigation report.
The list of aggravating and mitigating circumstances on Form 7 is illustrative and not exhaustive.
Sentencing recommendations given to the judge must include a sentencing matrix found in Forms 1-7. A step-by-step
example of how to score a matrix can be found on pages 24-25 and full instructions are on pages 12-23. Electronic copies
of the forms can be found at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/eForms.html. You may also contact the Sentencing
Commission if you have questions.
The Guidelines also include the Behavior Management Tools. These tools were created to give swift, certain, consistent and
proportionate responses to both compliance with, and violations of, the conditions of supervision by integrating behavioral
principals into graduated responses. Positive reinforcements should be provided at a xed ratio schedule, meaning that after
each occurrence of the desired behavior or skill, some reinforcement is provided. In relation to sanctions applied, positive
reinforcements should be provided at a ratio of approximately 4:1 (four incentives for every one sanction). All options within
Behavior Management Tools are dependent upon available resources and do not create a right on behalf of an individual
convicted of a crime.
6. Media
Sentencing guidelines in Utah are aimed at three main factors:
1) Risk management;
2) Risk reduction; and
3) Restitution for victims.
One of the most successful ways to address all three factors is the utilization of evidence-based sentencing. Evidence-based
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 80
sentencing utilizes validated tools and assessments that help identify risk – both risk management and risk reduction – as
well as address restitution.
When looking at risk, supervision and treatment resources should be prioritized for those individuals who are high- and
moderate-risk level. An individual who is identied as low-risk and low-need has few criminogenic risks/needs and therefore,
there is little which can be targeted for reduction. In addition, including low-risk and low-need individuals in programming
with higher risk individuals not only is an inecient use of limited resources, but can have the unintended consequence of
increasing a low-risk individual’s criminogenic risk factors. A greater explanation of evidence-based sentencing can be found
in Addendum E.
Once an individual is convicted of a crime (guilty plea or nding of guilt after a trial) a judge may order a presentence
investigation. A presentence investigation is used to gather information about an individual convicted of a crime and present
that information to a judge as well as give a sentencing recommendation based on the Guidelines and matrices. Presentence
investigations may consider:
• Type of offense;
• Risk and needs assessments;
• Demand for service;
• Availability of agency resources;
• Public safety; and
• Any other criteria established by the Utah Department of Corrections.
The recommendation made to the judge should conform to the Guidelines unless aggravating or mitigating circumstances are
documented. For more information about presentence investigations refer to page 65.
A step-by-step example of how to score a matrix can be found on pages 24-25 and full instructions are on pages 12-23.
Also, electronic forms that help you calculate scores can be found at https://justice.utah.gov/Sentencing/eForms.html.
Recommendations on the matrices are determined by factors that might not always be known to the media or public and
therefore recommendations might not always be what is expected or anticipated.
Other important information:
• Forms 1-6 create a starting point and reect a recommendation for a typical case. However, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances can be taken into consideration by both the sentencing judge and the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board)
in making their nal decisions.
• Aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be found on Form 7.
• The Guidelines do not create any right or expectation on behalf of any individual nor do they create a liberty interest on
behalf of an individual convicted of a crime.
• If an individual is sent to prison, the Board will recalculate their sentencing matrix and their guidelines may change.
For more information on why the Board will recalculate an individual’s sentencing matrix see pages 86-87 for more
information.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 81
BIG FOURMODERATE FOUR
CRIMINOGENIC NEED TREATMENT TARGETS
Antisocial Behavior
Exploitive, aggressive, or harmful behavior toward others
Increase pro-social behaviors, reinforce pro-social beliefs,
support crime-free lifestyle. Develop clear, consistent, and
proximate reward and consequences for behavior. Teach, mod-
el, and reinforce pro-social skills in high-risk situations.
Antisocial Personality Pattern
Impulsive, sensation seeking, risk-taking, aggressive,
manipulative and exploitive.
Increase self-control and delayed gratication skills, anger and
conict management, problem solving. Reinforce pro-social
interpersonal interactions.
Antisocial Cognition
Values, beliefs, feelings, and cognitions (thinking) that
contribute to personal identity that favors and reinforces
criminal behavior.
Address cognitive distortions and rationalizations that main-
tain a criminal identity. Build, practice, and reinforce new
cognitions and attributions through cognitive restructuring and
cognitive-behavior therapies.
Antisocial Peers
Preferring to associate with pro-criminal peers and isola-
tion from anti-criminal peers and social contexts.
Reduce and eliminate association with delinquent peers and
increase opportunities for regular association with anti-crimi-
nal peers and institutions (school, church, clubs, sports teams,
and other structured and supervised activities).
Family
Chaotic and poor-quality family relationships that have
minimal or no pro-social expectations regarding crime and
substance abuse.
Increase pro-social communication, nurturance, structure,
supervision, and monitoring in the family. Address dysfunc-
tional boundaries and role confusion. Provides for consistent
rewards for pro-social family interactions.
School/Work
Poor performance and limited engagement with school or
work resulting in dissatisfaction and avoidance of them.
Increase school and/ or work performance through education,
vocational training, or alternative placement. Provide rewards
and consequences to increase consistent attendance and
progress at school and/or work.
Leisure & Recreation
Limited involvement in anti-criminal leisure activities.
Expose to a variety of pro-social leisure and recreational
activities. Increase opportunities for regular involvement in
preferred activities and reward progress.
Substance Abuse
Use and abuse of alcohol and/or drugs.
Reduce substance use through targeted treatment, supervision
and access. Reduce exposure to substance abusing peers.
Increase capacity to cope with stressors through lifestyle
changes in exercise, sleep, and nutrition.
Adapted from Butters, R.P. (2014) Community Based Treatment Interventions. W. Church & D. Springer (Eds.),
Juvenile Justice Sourcebook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press 2014.
Addendum G: Central Eight Criminal Risk Factors & Treatment Targets
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 82
The Responsivity Principle
Maximize the individual’s ability to learn from a rehabilitative intervention
by providing cognitive behavioral treatment and tailoring the intervention
to the learning style, motivation, abilities and strengths of the individual.
General Specic
Use cognitive social learning methods to
inuence behavior.
Use cognitive behavioral interventions that
take into account strengths, learning style,
personality, motivation, and bio-social charac-
teristics of the individual.
Examples of programming addressing
responsivity generally include:
• Pro-social modeling
• Appropriate use of reinforcement and disapproval
• Problem solving
• Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
Examples of Responsivity
Factors include:
• Motivation
• Culture
• Learning Style
• Physical Needs
• Gender
• Mental Illness
• Trauma
• Age
• Functional Ability
• Language
• Housing
• Physical Health
• Transportation
• Minimization
Adapted from Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2007) Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Cat. No.: PS3-1/2007-6 ISBN No.: 978-0-662-
05049-0. Public Safety Canada: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2007
Addendum H: The Responsivity Principle & Factors
Stages of Change Model
Addendum I: Stages of the Change Model
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 84
Stage of Change Characteristics Techniques
Precontemplation
Not currently considering change
“Ignorance is bliss”
• Validate lack of readiness
• Clarify the decision is theirs
• Encourage re-evaluation of current behavior
• Encourage self-exploration, not action
• Explain and personalize the risk
Contemplation
Ambivalent about change
Not considering change within
the next month
“Sitting on the fence”
• Validate lack of readiness
• Clarify the decision is theirs
• Encourage evaluation of pros and cons of
behavior change
• Identify and promote new, positive outcome
expectations
Preparation
Some experience with change
and are trying to change
Planning to act within one month
“Testing the waters”
Planning to act within one month
• Identify and assist in problem solving re:
obstacles
• Help identify social support
• Verify they have the underlying skills for
behavior change
• Encourage small initial steps
Action
Practicing new behavior for 3-6
months
• Focus on restructuring cues and social sup-
port
• Bolster self-ecacy for dealing with obsta-
cles
• Combat feelings of loss and reiterate long-
term benets
Maintenance
Continue commitment to sustain-
ing new behavior post-6 months
to 5 years
• Plan for follow-up support
• Reinforce internal rewards
• Discuss coping with relapse
Relapse
Resumption of old behaviors
“Fall from grace”
• Evaluate trigger for relapse
• Reassess motivation and barriers
• Plan stronger coping strategies
Adapted from Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2007) Risk-Need-Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation. Cat. No.: PS3-1/2007-6 ISBN No.: 978-0-662-
05049-0. Public Safety Canada: Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2007
The Stages of Change Model is generally utilized by treatment and/or supervision providers. The inclusion of the model herein is intended to provide a
general explanation only. The graph on the previous page illustrates that behavioral modication is rarely a linear path.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 85
Addendum J: PSI Process for Low-Risk Individuals
AP&P will provide a modied PSI (Sentence Memorandum) to the court for certain low-risk individuals prior to sentencing in the
following circumstances:
1. Class A and above person offenses listed in Addendum B to the Sentencing, Release, and Supervision Guidelines, except that
sex offenses will continue to receive a full PSI;
2. DUI offenses within the scope of UCA 41-6a-505 (felony & class A);
3. When the court determines a PSI is warranted for reasons stated on the record, taking into account that, “[i]f an [individual]
is identied as low risk on the LSI-SV, a full risk assessment is generally not warranted . . . as supervision services should
generally not be targeted towards low risk [individuals]).” 2015 Adult Sentencing & Release Guidelines, p. 11.
PROCEDURE
1. The LSI-SV should be administered as soon as possible after the court submits a referral to AP&P, until the counties
begin administering the screening and reporting the results to the court.
2. If the individual is screened or assessed as low AND meets one of the above criteria (person offense; DUI; or other
reason stated on the record) AP&P will prepare the Sentencing Memorandum.
3. If AP&P recommends that a PSI or supervision is not warranted because of a low risk screen that does not meet one of
the above criteria, it should notify the court promptly after the screen is administered.
4. If the court determines that a PSI is needed, it will notify AP&P.
5. If a judge has a concern regarding a PSI report prepared by AP&P based on either the judge’s review of the report or
a concern raised by the prosecution or defense, the court should notify AP&P of the concern. AP&P should promptly
provide a response.
6. If AP&P determines that the original report is correct and complies with the guidelines, AP&P will explain its reasons to
the judge and no further reports will be provided.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 86
Addendum K: Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why isn’t the sentence what I expected (too harsh, too light)?
Each case is unique. While the Sentencing, Release, and Supervision Guidelines are intended to inform the sentencing,
release, and supervision authorities, they do not dictate their decisions. The calculated matrix on Forms 1-6 create a starting
point and reect a recommendation for a typical case. However, aggravating and mitigating circumstances can be taken into
consideration by the sentencing, release, and supervision authorities in making their nal decisions. See Form 7. The law
plus the individual facts of each case will determine whether the sentencing, release, or supervision authority chooses to
follow the guidelines or deviate from them. The sentence determination is solely the discretion of the sentencing, release, or
supervision authority.
2. What decisions will the judge make at the sentencing hearing?
At the sentencing hearing the judge will determine whether to impose the recommended sentence, deviate from the
recommended sentence based on aggravating or mitigating circumstances, suspend a sentence, and/or determine the
imposition of any nes or restitution. If an individual is sentenced to jail or probation the sentencing judge will also determine
the amount of jail time that is served and/or the amount of time served on probation. If an individual is sent to prison, the
Board of Pardons and Parole will determine the actual length of time the individual spends in prison. See question 6 for
further discussion about the calculation of prison time.
3. What does “indeterminate sentencing” mean?
Indeterminate sentencing means that the imposed sentence has a range of time rather than a specic period of time which
includes a minimum amount and maximum amount. For example, a 3rd degree felony carries an indeterminate sentence
of 0-5 years; meaning an individual may spend no time in prison but can also spend up to ve years in prison or any time in
between.
4. If the judge imposes prison time, how is the indeterminate sentence determined?
The legislature species the severity and an indeterminate time frame for each crime. Currently, the standard indeterminate
sentences in Utah are: 0-5 years for a 3rd degree felony, 1-15 years for a 2nd degree felony, and 5 years to life for a 1st degree
felony. Other time penalties may apply based on a specic law or a sentencing enhancement (extra time in prison for certain
characteristics in a crime). For example, the indeterminate sentence for rape of child, a 1st degree felony, is 25 years to life
but can be enhanced to life without parole based on criteria outlined in statute.
5. Does the judge have discretion to impose a different indeterminate sentence than specied by statute?
No. Utah law requires a judge to impose the sentence specied by the law. However, a judge may suspend a sentence which
allows an individual convicted of a crime the opportunity to serve jail time rather than prison or serve a period of probation.
6. If the judge imposes an indeterminate prison sentence, who determines the amount of time that person actually serves
and how is that determination made?
Once an individual is sentenced to prison the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) gains jurisdiction over that individual’s
sentence. It will be up to the Board when each individual is released from prison. Each individual must serve the entire
sentence unless the Board acts to release the individual before their sentence has expired. For example, an individual
convicted of a 2nd degree felony who is sent to prison must serve the entire 15 years in prison unless the Board acts to
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 87
release them.
The Utah Sentencing, Release, and Supervision Guidelines (Guidelines) specify the amount of time that is recommended for
an individual convicted of a crime to spend in prison. However, the guidelines are reviewed and recalculated by the Board.
Guidelines completed by AP&P and the Board measure different things. AP&P guidelines are completed prior to sentencing
and cannot include consecutive and concurrent calculations because the judge has not yet determined this. In contrast, Board
sentencing guidelines are completed after sentencing and include calculations for consecutive and concurrent sentences
based on the judge’s determination. In addition, AP&P sentencing guidelines include offenses before a specic judge on a
specic sentencing date while the sentencing guidelines completed by the Board include all offenses for an individual that
are committed to prison as part of a prison commitment. For example, if an individual has one case pending before a judge
in Weber County, one case pending before a separate judge in Salt Lake County, and a third case pending before a third judge
in Utah County, the individual would have three separate AP&P sentencing guidelines. However, if these three offenses were
committed to prison, the individual would have one Board sentencing guideline that included the cases from Weber County,
Salt Lake County, and Utah County.
The recommendations of the Guidelines are advisory only, they are not mandatory. The Board uses the Guidelines to make
more consistent and uniform decisions. However, the Guidelines do not create any right on behalf of an individual who has
been sentenced to prison and the Board has the discretion to deviate from the guidelines, and will do so based on aggravating
or mitigating circumstances. The Board makes its decisions on the individual merits of each case. Visit https://bop.utah.gov/
index.php/for-offenders-families/how-the-board-works#how_original_dates_are_set for more information.
7. Can a judge impose prison if it is not recommended by the guidelines?
Yes. The Department of Corrections, Adult Probation & Parole should make recommendations consistent with the Guidelines.
However, the Guidelines are a starting point and reect a recommendation for a typical case. The Guidelines do not limit
attorneys from arguing the merits of the case, nor do they limit judicial discretion.
8. What does it mean when the judge suspends the sentence?
When a judge suspends a sentence it means the sentence (prison or jail time) has been delayed so that the individual
convicted of a crime may serve an alternative form of punishment (i.e. jail instead of prison) or is allowed to serve a period of
probation. If the individual does not comply with the alternate sentence or the conditions of probation the original sentence
may be imposed.
9. If the judge imposes probation, what happens if the defendant doesn’t follow the conditions of probation?
The response to an individual not complying with a condition of probation is determined based upon the severity of the
condition that is not being followed. For example, public safety condition violations (i.e. failure to report for commitment)
are sanctioned more severely than accountability condition violations (i.e. not complying with curfew). A list of violations
and severity level can be found in Tool 2B. Tool 3 determines whether the violation is addressed by a probation/parole
ocer, probation/parole oce and their supervisor, or the court/Board of Pardons and Parole. Depending on the type of non-
compliance sanctions can range from mentoring programs or increased supervision to incarceration.
Research indicates that responses to violations should be swift, certain, consistent, and proportionate. If a sanction is too
weak, an individual may habituate to that sanction and it will never produce the effect of reducing that behavior. If a sanction
is too severe, there is a “ceiling effect,” as there is no room to graduate the sanction in the future if violations continue or
escalate. Tools 1-6 are intended to create a structured decision-making process to determine an appropriate response to both
accomplishments and violations while on supervision. Tool 5 gives examples of graduated sanctions after determining which
authority should address the violation.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 88
10. Will the sentencing guidelines completed by AP&P and the sentencing guidelines completed by the Board of Pardons
and Parole be the same?
In many situations, the sentencing guidelines completed by the Board of Pardons and Parole (Board) will not be the same
as the sentencing guidelines completed by Adult Probation & Parole (AP&P) because they measure different things. AP&P
guidelines are completed prior to sentencing and cannot include consecutive and concurrent calculations because the judge
has not yet determined this. In contrast, Board sentencing guidelines are completed after sentencing and include calculations
for consecutive and concurrent based on the judge’s determination. In addition, AP&P sentencing guidelines include offenses
before a specic judge on a specic sentencing date while the sentencing guidelines completed by the Board include all
offenses for an individual that are committed to prison as part of a prison commitment. For example, if an individual has one
case pending before a judge in Weber County, one case pending before a separate judge in Salt Lake County, and a third case
pending before a third judge in Utah County, the individual would have three separate AP&P sentencing guidelines. However,
if these three offenses were committed to prison, the individual would have one Board sentencing guideline that included the
cases from Weber County, Salt Lake County, and Utah County.
11. If the Guidelines are not mandatory, how will they have an impact?
After two Supreme Court decisions, in Blakely v. Washington 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005),
all sentencing guidelines are now advisory in nature nationwide. Utah’s Guidelines have always been advisory, but both
the Judiciary and the Board of Pardons and Parole have historically given them substantial deference. The Sentencing
Commission, in coordination with CCJJ, will continue to track the application of the guidelines annually and determine
whether further revisions are warranted.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 89
Addendum L: Glossary of Terms
402 Reduction: Reduction of degree of conviction generally by one or two degrees. See Utah Code 76-3-402.
ACES: Adverse Childhood Experiences, or ACEs, are potentially traumatic events that occur in childhood (0-17 years) such as
experiencing violence, abuse, or neglect; witnessing violence in the home; and having a family member attempt or die
by suicide. Also included are aspects of the child’s environment that can undermine their sense of safety, stability,and bonding
such as growing up in a household with substance misuse, mental health problems, or instability due to parental separation or
incarceration of a parent, sibling or other member of the household. ACEs can have negative, lasting effects on health, wellbeing,
education, employment, and earnings potential. See https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingACES.pdf.
Adult Probation and Parole (AP&P): Community-based supervision provided by a state agency for individuals on probation
and/or parole.
Adult Sentencing: The punishment given to an individual after nding of guilt at trial or a plea agreement.
Aggravating Circumstances: Factors that increase the severity or culpability of a criminal act.
Alternate Probation Providers: County or private probation providers; not AP&P.
Antisocial Associations: Socializing with friends, family, and associates who have positive attitudes about crime and encourage
criminal antisocial behavior.
Antisocial Behavior: Behavior that harms others, often with a lack of empathy for those harmed.
Antisocial Cognition: Attitudes, values and beliefs favorable towards crime.
Antisocial Personality: Impulsive, pleasure seeking behavior.
Bias: prejudice in favor or against a particular thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
Big Four (risk factors): The four main factors that affect recidivism. They are: 1) History of Antisocial Behavior; 2) Antisocial
Personality Pattern; 3) Antisocial Cognition; and 4) Antisocial Associates. See Addendum G.
Board of Pardons and Parole (BOPP): Part of the Executive Branch of the Utah Government. The Board may grant parole, remit
nes, forfeitures, and restitution orders, commute punishments, and grant pardons after convictions, in all cases except treason and
impeachments. See Utah Const. Art. VII Sec. 12.
Board: Often used as a short term for the Board of Pardons and Parole. See Board of Pardons and Parole.
Case Action Plan (CAP): A plan for inmates at the Utah State Prison, based on various assessments, that outlines an inmate’s
educational, program and treatment needs and to set goals for the inmate during his or her incarceration.
Central Eight (risk factors): The eight main factors that affect criminogenic risk. They include: 1) History of Antisocial Behavior; 2)
Antisocial Personality Pattern; 3) Antisocial Cognition; 4) Antisocial Associates; 5) Family/Marital Circumstances; 6) School/Work
Performance; 7) Leisure and Recreation; and 8) Substance Use. See Addendum G.
Cognitive Behavioral Treatment/Therapy (CBT): Behavioral treatment/therapy that focuses on addressing criminogenic risk factors
(identied by the LS/RNR) and thought processes as well as skill practice in order to reduce risk.
Cohabitant: An individual is considered a cohabitant if they and the other party are a spouse, parent, grandparent, sibling, related by
consanguinity or anity to the second degree, has or had children together, is a biological parent to an unborn child, resides or has
resided together, or is/was in a consensual sexual relationship together. Cohabitant does not mean parent, adoptive parent, or step-
parent to a minor or natural, adoptive, step, or foster siblings who are under the age of 18.
Community Accountability Board: Models for improving outcomes for minor offenses through a victim/offender restorative model.
Community Correctional Center (CCC): Residences or “halfway” houses operated by the Utah Department of Corrections designed
to help individuals who may not have a place to go upon release from prison.
Community Service: A restorative sanction intended to benet the community that has been harmed by an individual’s criminal
conduct such as volunteering or working for a nonprot organization without pay.
Concurrent: Two or more sentences that are served at the same time.
Consecutive: Two or more sentences that are served in sequence i.e. one after the other.
Conviction: A verdict or nding of guilty in a criminal court after a trial or plea.
COP/Jail as a Condition of Probation/Jail as an Initial Condition of Probation: A recommendation where a prison sentence is
suspended and jail time and probation is imposed.
Correctional Program Checklist (CPC): A tool developed to assess correctional intervention programs, and is used to ascertain
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 90
how closely correctional programs meet known principles of effective intervention. See https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/
gencounsel/docs/CPC%20Training%20MOU%2011.12.14.pdf.
County Probation: Probation supervision provided by a county provider to individuals convicted of misdemeanor criminal offenses.
Court Probation: Monitoring by the court of an individual’s compliance with conditions and court orders.
Crime Category: The category an individual is placed in based on degree of offense and type of crime.
Crime-Free Gap: Period of time in which an individual has committed a crime has gone without further criminal incidents.
Crime of Commitment Dependent Violations: One of the two ways that the Court or the Board can nd a substantial public safety
exception to the probation and parole violation caps or the Supervision Length Guidelines. Some behavior, like carrying a gun,
is inherently, or per se, dangerous. Other behavior poses a substantial public safety risk because of its relation to the underlying
offense or the crime of commitment. For example, an individual drinking alcohol is not a per se substantial public safety concern.
However, a person drinking alcohol whose crime of commitment was driving under the inuence could be considered a substantial
public safety risk.
Crime Severity: The hierarchy of crimes, in terms of seriousness, based on offense level. See Addendum A.
Criminal Conduct: Illegal behaviors.
Criminal History Score: A standard frame of reference to reduce or enhance the severity of a sentence based on the prior criminal
history and supervision history of the an individual.
Criminogenic: Dealing with criminal activity. Often used to describe risk factors that are statistically linked with criminal activity.
Example: “ACES scores (see ACES), are not statistically linked to a higher or lower probability of criminal activity. Therefore, an ACES
score is not a criminogenic risk factor.”
Curfew: A regulation specifying a time in which an individual on probation or parole must return and remain in their place of residence.
Defendant: An individual who has been accused of a crime, but has not been convicted.
Department of Corrections (DOC): State agency tasked with the responsibility of overseeing the individuals on AP&P probation as
well as the incarceration of persons convicted of crimes.
Departure: Any sentence outside the guideline recommendation.
Domestic Violence (DV): A criminal offense (or attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation) involving violence or physical harm or threat of
violence or physical harm when committed by one cohabitant against another.
Drug Court: A problem-solving specialty court that focuses on drug or alcohol substance disorders contributing to underlying
criminal behavior.
DUI: Driving Under the Inuence.
Dynamic Risk Factors: This refers to risk factors on a risk assessment that an individual can change by changing his or her behavior.
Early Termination: A graduated probation or parole incentive, that can only be granted by the court or Board of Pardons, wherein
an individual’s probation or parole term is ended early after meeting standards in three areas: 1) treatment; 2) risk reductions; and
compliance and stability. See Supervision Length Guidelines.
Felony: Any violation of a criminal statute for which the maximum punishment the individual may be subjected to exceeds one year.
Fine Reduction: A graduated probation or parole incentive, which can only be granted by the court or Board of Pardons, wherein an
individual’s ne is reduced or forgiven in part due to successful completion of other probation or parole conditions.
Full Version PSI: Presentence investigative report for individuals convicted of felony offenses who are moderate- or high-risk
individuals or any sex offense class A and higher regardless of risk level.
GPS/EM/Electronic Monitoring: A tracking device that is worn or carried 24-hours-a-day which allows monitoring and is used to help
enforce imposed conditions.
Graduated Incentives: Structured, incremental responses used to encourage continued positive behavior for individuals on probation
or parole.
Graduated Responses and Sanctions: Structured, incremental responses to non-compliant behavior while under probation or parole.
Grievous Sexual Offenses: means rape; rape of a child; object rape; object rape of a child; forcible sodomy; sodomy on a child;
aggravated sexual abuse of a child; aggravated sexual assault; any felony attempt to commit one of the above offenses; or an
offense in another state, territory, or district of the United States that, if committed in Utah, would constitute one of the above
offenses. See Utah Code § 76-1-601(8).
Guideline: A statement attempting to further structure decision-making relative to sentencing and release.
Guilty but Mentally Ill/GMI: This is a special type of guilty plea that indicates that the individual was found guilty of the crime but
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 91
was mentally ill at the time and may still be mentally ill. Utah Code § 76-2-3 denes mentally ill as: “a mental disease or defect that
substantially impairs [an individual’s] mental, emotional, or behavioral functioning. A mental defect may be a congenital condition,
the result of injury, or a residual effect of a physical or mental disease and includes, but is not limited to, intellectual disability.”
Habitual Sex Offender: An individual convicted of a sexual offense who has previously been convicted of a felony offense dened in
statute.
Incarceration Cap: The maximum amount of time an individual can spend incarcerated for a given offense or violation.
Intervention Assignment (Problem Solving Report/Thinking Report): A report authored by an individual to help them identify the
root causes of an issue and strategies to approach or avoid the problematic thoughts and behaviors. May include worksheets or
tools to address specic risk/need factors identied through assessment and current behaviors. Carey BITS and Carey Guides are
both examples of an intervention assignment. See https://careygrouppublishing.com/FAQ-About-the-Carey-Guides-and-BITS.pdf for
more information about Carey BITS and Guides.
Jail: A facility of connement for pretrial holds or convictions under one year.
Jessica’s Law: The informal name given to Utah’s law, which increased the maximum penalty for rape of a child, object rape of a
child, and sodomy on a child convictions.
Jurisdiction: The court or legal authority that has the ability to govern over a case based on offense level or location of the issue.
Juvenile Adjudication: Findings by a juvenile court that facts alleged in a juvenile petition are true after a trial or plea.
Low-risk Memo: Sentencing memorandum for class A misdemeanor low-risk individuals; excluding sex offenses.
LS/RNR: Level of Services/Risk Needs Responsivity. A risk assessment tool combined with a survey of needs used for development
of a case action plan. (See Case Action Plan). Currently, the LS/RNR is the primary tool for general risk assessment in Utah.
LSI: Level of Service Inventory. A screening tool used to determine placement if incarcerated and used to determine if more robust
assessments are needed.
LSI:SV: A risk/needs assessment tool encompassing seven key risk factors: criminal history, criminal attitudes, criminal associates,
personal/emotional, employment, family and substance abuse.
LSI-R: Level of Service Inventory-Revised. See LSI.
Matrix: A grid of recommendations and starting points for sentencing for a typical case.
Mental Health Court: A problem-solving specialty court that focuses on mental health disorders contributing to underlying criminal
behavior.
MHS: Mental Health Services.
Minimum Sentences: A classication of crimes where a prison sentence must be served and the sentencing authority may not
suspend the sentence or lower the category of offense. The offenses are aggravated murder, murder, child kidnapping, aggravated
kidnapping, rape – if the individual is sentenced under Utah Code § 76-5-402(3)(b), 3(c), or (4), rape of a child, object rape – if the
individual is sentenced under Utah Code § 76-5-402.1(1)(b), (1)(c), or (2), object rape of a child, forcible sodomy – if the individual
is sentenced under Utah Code § 76-5-403(3)(b), (3)(c), or (4), sodomy on a child, forcible sex abuse – if the individual is sentenced
under § 76-5-404(2)(b) or (3), aggravated sex abuse of a child, aggravated sexual assault, or any attempt to commit rape of a child,
object rape of a child, or sodomy on a child.
Misdemeanor: Any violation of a criminal statute for which the maximum punishment an individual may be subjected to is less than
one year.
Mitigating Circumstances: Factors that decrease the severity or culpability of a criminal act.
Offender: An individual who has been convicted or has pleaded guilty to a crime. This is a disfavored term. Please consider “an
individual who has committed a crime.”
Other Crime: A crime that does not fall into the category of murder, death, person or possession only crime to help determine the
appropriate crime category column on the guidelines matrices. See Addendum B.
Parole Violation Hearing: A hearing, held by BOPP, after an individual is alleged to have violated the terms or conditions of the
parole agreement.
Parole: State supervision for individuals who have been released to the community prior to the expiration of their prison sentences.
Parolee: An individual who was released from prison before the termination of their sentence and is supervised by the state. This is
a disfavored term. Please consider “a person or individual on parole.”
Peer Mentor: An individual who has lived through a specic experience who then mentors an individual who is new to that experience.
Per Se Violations: An act that by itself that is a violation of probation or parole. In other words, no other proof is required to prove
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 92
the violation other than the behavior itself. Examples include possessing a dangerous weapon, being involved in a high speed chase,
no longer checking in with probation/parole ocer.
Person Crime: Category of crime committed against a person such assault, sexual offenses, robbery, etc. which helps determine the
appropriate crime category column on the guidelines matrices. See Addendum B.
Plea Bargain/Plea Agreement/Plea Offer: An agreement between a prosecutor and the defendant whereby the defendant pleads
guilty and in exchange the prosecutor agrees to reduce the degree of charges, dismiss charges, recommend a particular sentence,
or any combination of the three.
Plea in Abeyance: An agreement between an individual convicted of a crime and the court, after a plea of guilty or no contest, that a
charge(s) will be dismissed upon successful completion of court orders.
Poss (Possession): The joint or individual ownership, control, control, occupancy, holding, retaining belonging, or maintaining a
controlled substance.
Possession Only Crime: Offenses that consist solely of the possession of a controlled substance. See Addendum B.
Presentence Investigation Report (PSI or PSR): A report prepared for a judge, sentencing authority, or supervising authority that
contains information about an individual convicted of a crime including personal history, criminal history, gang aliation, and
performance on any past probationary or parole periods, ndings from any screenings and assessments, recommendations for
treatment, as well as any victim impact statements and any recommendations regarding restitution.
Presumption/Presumptive: The assumption that an individual receive a given sentence based on their criminal history matrix.
Prison: A facility of connement for periods over one year.
Prisoner: An individual who is currently incarcerated under the jurisdiction of the Utah Department of Corrections. This is a
disfavored term. Please consider “person or individual in prison.”
Private Probation: Probation supervision provided by a private service provider.
Probation: State, county, or private supervision for people who have had their prison or jail sentence suspended under certain
conditions.
Probationer: This is a disfavored term. Please consider “a person or individual on probation.” A person whose jail or prison sentence
has been suspended and is instead being supervised by state, county, or private probation.
Problem Solving Court: A specialty court that provides court-supervised probation and mandated treatment in regards to identied
issues that contribute to underlying criminal behavior.
Property Crime: Category of crime involving property such as theft, trespassing, vandalism, etc.
Proportionality: The idea that the punishment of a crime or probation/parole violation should be comparable to the severity of the
crime. Or the idea that similar punishments should be imposed on individuals committing similar offenses.
Pro-social modeling: Showing, by example, how to engage in healthy and helpful behaviors.
PV (Parole Violation or Probation Violation): Non-compliance with a term or condition of an individual’s probation or parole.
Rescission Hearing: A hearing, after BOPP has granted a future release date, for a review of that decision due to violations of prison
regulations, new criminal convictions, or other issues.
Response Magnitude: The level of response given to behaviors, both positive and negative, to either reinforce or eliminate a specic
behavior.
Responsivity Factors: This refers to factors that take into account an individual’s strengths, learning style, personality, motivation,
and bio-social characteristics to develop cognitive behavioral interventions. See Addendum G.
Revocation: A decision by a judge to take someone off of probation and impose the originally suspended sentence, or a decision by
the Board of Pardons to end parole and return an individual to prison.
RIM: Response/Incentive Matrix. This is a tool used by the Courts, the Board, and Adult Probation and Parole to determine an
appropriate response to positive behavior while under supervision or a violation of probation or parole terms.
Risk and Needs Assessment: A risk assessment combined with an assessment of an individual’s needs. These needs could include
things like education, substance use treatment, and employment training.
Risk Assessment: A statistical tool used to estimate the probability that an individual will re-offend.
Risk Avoidance Plan: A plan authored by the individual, and approved by the agent, to assist the person in avoiding, confronting, and
ultimately eliminating obstacles, hazards, triggers, and exposures that may negatively affect their success.
Rule: A regulation governing a court’s or an agency’s internal procedures.
Screening: A tool or short questionnaire designed to determine if an individual needs a more thorough assessment or additional
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 93
resources or referrals to treatment.
Sentencing Enhancements: Allow - and sometimes require - a judge to increase an individual’s sentence beyond the normal range.
Sentencing Judge/Sentencing Authority: The person or group with the power to sanction an individual convicted of a crime.
Sex Offender in Cycle: The offense cycle for sexual offending revolving around the interaction of the individual’s thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors.
Short Version PSI: A shorter version of the presentence investigation report for individuals convicted of felony offenses that are
low-risk individuals or convicted of class A offenses and are moderate- or high-risk individuals.
Specialty Court: A problem-solving court that provides court-supervised probation and mandated treatment in regards to identied
issues that contributes to underlying criminal behavior.
Specic Third: A special group of third degree felonies that receive special treatment in the guidelines because of the unique risks
they pose for public safety. They are: DUI, Possession of a Firearm by a Restricted Person, and Failure to Respond to Ocer’s
Signal to Stop. Most crimes fall into the general categories identied in Addendum B, but the specic thirds are enumerated in the
top part of Form 1 and are treated in the same category as 2nd degree “other” crimes.
Statute: A law passed by the legislature.
Structured Decision-Making Tool: A decision making tool that utilizes a structured framework providing guidelines for professional
decision makers to help them reach more consistent, transparent, and high-quality conditional release decisions by considering
information demonstrated to be linked to post-release performance. Based on source: https://nicic.gov/analysis-use-structured-
decisionmaking-framework-three-states, retrieved 7/6/2020.
Structured Living: A sober program that offers a monitored drug/alcohol free environment.
Supervision History: Past times of supervision including probation and parole.
Suspended Sentence: The delay of imposing a sentence so that an individual convicted of a crime may serve an alternative form of
punishment or allowed a period to serve a probation period.
TCUD: A widely used instrument for identifying substance use problems.
The Moderate Four (risk factors): The four secondary factors that affect recidivism. They are: 1) Family/Marital Circumstances; 2)
School/Work Performance; 3) Leisure and Recreation; and 4) Substance Use. See Addendum G.
Treatment Resource Center: Centers which provide treatment and resources to support the long-term success of those under
probation supervision.
Urinalysis (UA or UAs): A test of an individual’s urine to detect the use of alcohol and/or drugs.
Validated Risk Assessment: Validated risk assessments are tools, used to identify criminogenic risk factors that are checked
against actual results to determine the statistical accuracy of the tool.
Veterans Court: A specialty court designed to handle criminal cases involving defendants who have a history of military service.
Voucher: A gift certicate or voucher for goods or services at designated locations.
Walkaway: An individual who is on probation or parole and has stopped checking in with the supervising authority.
Warrant: A document issued by a court or authorized government ocial authorizing the police or someone to make an arrest,
search premises, or carry out some action related to the administration of justice.
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 94
Addendum K: References
Baradaran, Shima. “Race, Prediction, and Discretion.” George Washington Law Review 81, no. 1 (January 2013): 157-222. www.
gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Baradaran_81_1.pdf
Durose, Matthew R., Alexia D. Cooper, Howard N. Snyder. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released In 30 States In 2005: Patterns From
2005 To 2010 – Update,” Bureau of Justice Statistics. (April 2014). https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4986
Durrant, Matthew B. “State of the Judiciary Address.” Chief Justice, Utah Supreme Court. 2014. http://digitallibrary.utah.gov/
awweb/guest.jsp?smd=1&cl=all_lib&lb_document_id=68277
Flores, Anthony W., Christopher T. Lowenkamp, and Kristin Bechtel. “False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder
to ‘Machine Bias: There’s Software Used Across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And it’s Biased Against Blacks.’” Community
Resources for Justice: Crime & Justice Institute. July 11, 2016 http://www.crj.org/page/-/publications/rejoinder7.11.pdf
Frase, Richard S., Julian R. Roberts, Rhys Hester, and Kelly Lyn Mitchell. “Criminal History Enhancements Sourcebook.” University
of Minnesota, Robina Institute of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice. May 1, 2016 http://robinainstitute.umn.edu/publications/
criminal-history-enhancements-sourcebook
Gendreau, Paul, Claire Goggin, and Francis Cullen. “The Effects of Prison Sentences on Recidivism.” Report to the Solicitor General
of Canada. 2009. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm
Hickert, Audrey O., Kort C. Prince, Erin B. Worwood, and Robert P. Buttars. “Development of Utah’s Incentive and Response Matrix.”
Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah. 2014. https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/ViolMatrix_Yr1Report_
Final1.pdf
Latessa, E.J. and C.T. Lowenkamp. “What Works in Reducing Recidivism?” University of St. Thomas Law Journal 3:3 (2006): 521-
535. http://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/ccjr/docs/articles/What_Works_STLJ.pdf
Marlowe, Douglas B. “Evidence-Based Sentencing for Drug Offenders: An Analysis of Prognostic Risks and Criminogenic Needs.”
Policy and Law, National Association of Drug Court Professionals 1, no. 1 (2009), 173-175. https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.
journals/chapjcj1&i=187
Nagin, Daniel S., Francis T. Cullen, and Cheryl Lero Jonson, “Imprisonment and Reoffending,” Crime and Justice 38 (2009): 115-200.
Nagy, Geraldine, and Roger K. Warren. “Evidence-Based Sentencing to Reduce Recidivism and Hold Offenders Accountable.”
Presentation by National Center for State Courts at Smarter Sentencing Conference, Utah Administrative Oce of the Courts, Salt
Lake City, UT. 2014.
Center for Sentencing Initiatives. “Evidence-Based Sentencing. Fact Sheet.” National Center for State Courts. Williamsburg, VA. 2014.
https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_le/0018/25290/ebs-fact-sheet-8-27-14.pdf
Oce of the Legislative Auditor General, State of Utah, “A Performance Audit of the Board of Pardons and Parole.” 2016. https://
le.utah.gov/audit/16_01rpt.pdf
Oce of the Legislative Auditor General, State of Utah, “A Performance Audit of the Division of Adult Probation and Parole.” 2013.
http://le.utah.gov/audit/13_08rpt.pdf
Petrosino Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, James O. Finckenauer. “Wellmeaning programs can have harmful effects!: Lessons
2023 UTAH SENTENCING GUIDELINES PAGE 95
from experiments in Scared Straight and other like programs.” Crime & Delinquency 46 (2000): 354 - 379. http://www.d.umn.
edu/~jmaahs/Correctional%20Assessment/Articles/petrosino.pdf
Pew Charitable Trusts, “Factors Contributing to the Crime Decline.” September 2014. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/about/news-
room/news/2014/09/11/factors-contributing-to-the-crime-decline
Roeder, Oliver, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Julia Bowling. “What Caused the Crime Decline.” New York University School of Law,
Brennan Center for Justice, 2015. https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline
Roth, David. “A Judge’s View of Procedural Fairness.” Utah State Bar Journal 28, No. 1 (Jan-Feb 2015): 12-13. https://www.utahbar.
org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/2015_edition_01_jan_feb.pdf
Spohn, Cassia and David Holleran, “The Effect of Imprisonment on Recidivism Rates of Felony Offenders: A Focus on Drug
Offenders,” Criminology, 40 (2002): 329–358.
Starr, Sonja B. “Evidence-Based Sentencing and Scientic Rationalization of Discrimination.” Law and Economics Working Papers:
Paper 90, 2014. http://repository.law.umich.edu/law_econ_current/90
Tanana, M.J., S. Wilson, M. Prospero, and R. Van Vleet. “Utah Sentence Ination.” Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah,
2008. https://socialwork.utah.edu/_resources/documents/961.pdf
United States Sentencing Commission. “Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview.” (2016) https://www.
ussc.gov/sites/default/les/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/recidivism_overview.pdf
Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. “Justice Reinvestment Report.” (2014) http://justice.utah.gov/Documents/
CCJJ/Reports/Justice_Reinvestment_Report_2014.pdf
Villetaz, Patrice, Martin Killias, and Isabel Zoder (2006). “The effects of custodial vs. non-custodial sentences on re-offending: A
systematic review of the state of knowledge.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 13 (2006). https://publikationen.uni-tuebingen.de/
xmlui/bitstream/handle/10900/64636/Killias_Sentencing_review%20corrected.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
White, J.M., et. al. “The Meta-Analysis of Clinical Judgment Project: Fifty-Six Years of Accumulated Research on Clinical Versus
Statistical Prediction.” The Counseling Psychologist 34, No. 3 (2006): 341-382. http://tcp.sagepub.com/content/34/3/341
