On Monday, November 24, 2025, The Salt Lake Tribune reported that the Utah Supreme Court had issued a ruling concerning a defendant’s right to speak before sentencing, a legal principle known as allocution, in a case involving a drug dealer who appeared before 3rd District Judge Randall Skanchy. The Supreme Court’s decision, delivered in a 3-2 ruling earlier in November, overturned a lower court’s decision that had favored a new sentencing hearing for the defendant.
The case originated from two separate incidents in 2020, where investigators searched the defendant’s Salt Lake County apartment. The first search in March yielded a shrink-wrapped brick of methamphetamine, other drugs, and three firearms, leading to the initial filing of seven charges. While out on bail in December 2020, a subsequent search uncovered methamphetamine and heroin divided into small baggies, along with digital scales and packing materials, suggesting the defendant was involved in repackaging narcotics for distribution. This led to an additional four charges.
Ultimately, prosecutors combined the two cases and offered the defendant a plea deal, to which he agreed, pleading guilty to two second-degree felonies and one third-degree felony. Prior to sentencing, the defendant penned letters to the court expressing his desire to participate in drug treatment programs, an opportunity he had been denied during previous prison terms, as highlighted by his legal representatives.
Judge Skanchy acknowledged these letters but cited the substantial quantities of methamphetamine, firearms, and money seized as reasons for not recommending the defendant for a therapeutic community without compelling justification. He then requested a presentencing report.
During the sentencing hearing, while prosecutors and defense attorneys presented their arguments, Judge Skanchy did not invite the defendant to speak, nor did the defendant request to do so. This omission was deemed an “obvious” and “harmful” error by the Utah Court of Appeals, which referenced federal appeals court precedents. The Court of Appeals subsequently vacated the original sentencing and mandated a new hearing.
The Utah Supreme Court, however, reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision. Associate Chief Justice John A. Pearce, writing for the majority, argued that Utah’s sentencing laws differ significantly from federal guidelines, limiting the influence of state judges on the actual duration of sentences served.
Pearce explained that Utah judges primarily make binary decisions: probation versus incarceration, and concurrent versus consecutive sentences for multiple convictions. The Utah Board of Pardons then determines the length of incarceration. Given these constraints, Pearce asserted that the likelihood of allocution affecting a sentence is relatively small, questioning whether a statement of contrition would alter the court’s decision. Justices Paige Petersen and Jill M. Pohlman concurred with Pearce’s opinion.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the case was remanded to the appeals court to address whether Judge Skanchy abused his discretion in sentencing the defendant to prison instead of probation, as recommended.
The defendant, now 58, has since been released by the Utah Board of Pardons and is currently on parole following a more recent assault conviction.
Source: The Salt Lake Tribune
