State v. Mitchell

2013 UT App 251
_________________________________________________________
THE U TAH COURT OF A PPEALS
STATE OF U TAH,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
BRITTANY G AYLE MITCHELL,
Defendant and Appellant
Per Curiam Decision
No. 20120849‐CA
Filed October 18, 2013
Third District Court, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Deno G. Himonas
No. 121908378
Herschel Bullen, Attorney for Appellant
John E. Swallow and Jeanne B. Inouye, Attorneys
for Appellee
Before J UDGES J AMES Z. D AVIS, C AROLYN B. MCHUGH, AND
J. FREDERIC VOROS J R .
PER CURIAM:
¶1 	Brittany Gayle Mitchell appeals her sentences after she
pleaded guilty to attempted possession or use of a controlled
substance, a class A misdemeanor, and use or possession of drug
paraphernalia, a class B misdemeanor. We affirm.
¶2 	“[A] trial court’s sentencing decision will not be overturned
unless it exceeds statutory or constitutional limits, the judge failed
to consider all of the legally relevant factors, or the actions of the
judge were so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of
discretion.” State v. Killpack, 2008 UT 49, ¶ 59, 191 P.3d 17.

State v. Mitchell
¶3 	Mitchell does not assert that her sentences exceed statutory
or constitutional limits, or that the district court failed to consider
all of the legally relevant factors. Instead, Mitchell asserts, without
further analysis or argument, that her sentences are excessive “in
light of [her] background and the crime committed,” as well as “the
interests of society which underlie the criminal justice system.”
These generalized complaints do not establish that her sentences
are so inherently unfair as to constitute an abuse of discretion.
¶4 	Affirmed.
20120849‐CA 	2013 UT App 251	2