{"id":1671,"date":"2019-08-26T08:49:33","date_gmt":"2019-08-26T13:49:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=1671"},"modified":"2019-10-21T16:00:01","modified_gmt":"2019-10-21T21:00:01","slug":"holste-v-state-utah-2019","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2019\/08\/26\/holste-v-state-utah-2019\/","title":{"rendered":"Holste v. State (Utah 2019)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Holste v. State, 2019 UT 52 (Utah 2019)<\/h2>\n

Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Petitioner entered a guilty plea to a sex offense in Idaho in exchange for a period of probation and a withhold of judgment. After completion of probation, the Idaho court set aside Petitioner’s plea, though Petitioner was still required to register as a sex offender under Idaho law.<\/p>\n

Thereafter, Petitioner moved to Utah and was informed by Respondents that he would be required to register as a sex offender in Utah as well. Petitioner filed suit in Utah state court seeking a declaratory judgment that he was not required to register as a sex offender under Utah state law, as he was never “convicted” of an offense. Utah state trial court denied the motion, and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed. Petitioner sought review from the Utah Supreme Court, which was granted.<\/p>\n

Holding: <\/strong> Utah Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Utah Court of Appeals. Petitioner is required to register as a sex offender in Utah, regardless of whether or not he was “convicted” of an offense. Moreover, the Court also found that Petitioner’s guilty plea counted as a “conviction” under both Idaho and Utah state law.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n