## Facts

- Patrick William Casey was charged with aggravated sexual abuse of a child, a first-degree felony, based on allegations involving M.R., a minor.
- After a preliminary hearing produced strong evidence of guilt, the prosecutor later offered a plea bargain reducing the charge to lewdness involving a child, a class A misdemeanor, in exchange for a guilty plea.
- M.R.’s mother attended the change-of-plea hearing intending to speak against the plea agreement, but the court accepted the plea without receiving a statement from her.
- After the plea, M.R. (through her mother) retained counsel and filed motions to set aside the plea (“misplea”) and to reject the plea bargain.
- The State and Casey moved to strike the victim-filed motions, asserting M.R. was a non-party without standing in the criminal case.
- At sentencing, the district court heard from M.R. and her mother (effectively reopening the plea proceeding informally), but reaffirmed the plea and sentenced Casey to eight months in jail.
- M.R. filed a notice of appeal challenging the trial court’s acceptance of the plea bargain and denial of the victim-filed motions.

## Issues

1. Whether a crime victim has standing under Utah law to file motions in a criminal prosecution seeking to set aside a defendant’s guilty plea or to reject a plea bargain.
2. Whether a crime victim has standing to independently appeal a criminal court’s acceptance of a plea agreement and the resulting judgment and sentence.

## Decision

- The Utah Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because M.R. lacked appellate standing.
- The court held that crime victims are not parties to a criminal prosecution and have no independent right to appeal a criminal disposition.
- The court declined to reach the merits of any alleged violations of victims’ rights provisions because standing was dispositive.
- Casey’s guilty plea and sentence remained undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a threshold jurisdictional requirement; an appellate court cannot address the merits absent a legally recognized right to invoke appellate review.
- A criminal prosecution is brought and controlled by the State against the defendant; victims, though affected by the crime, are not parties and do not control charging decisions, plea agreements, or appellate litigation.
- Utah constitutional and statutory victims’ rights provisions grant specified participatory rights (e.g., notice, presence, and the opportunity to be heard at designated stages) but do not confer party status or a general right to intervene.
- A right to appeal in criminal cases must be expressly authorized; victims’ rights provisions are not read to create an implied independent right of appeal.

## Conclusion

The Utah Supreme Court held that a crime victim lacks standing to independently appeal a criminal plea-based judgment and related trial court rulings, because victims are not parties to the prosecution and Utah law does not grant them an appellate right to challenge the State’s charging or plea decisions.


State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756 (Utah 2002)