• State v. Dakota Anthony Dente, Opinion No. 20240688-CA, 2025 UT App 95
• Utah Court of Appeals
• Filed June 26, 2025
Quick Summary: The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s decision denying a defendant’s attempt to withdraw his guilty plea to a felony sex crime. The defendant claimed his plea wasn’t knowing or voluntary due to undisclosed evidence, incomplete advice on sex-offender registration consequences, and attorney pressure, but the court found these arguments unpersuasive.
Facts: Dakota Anthony Dente was initially charged with serious sexual offenses, specifically two first-degree felony counts of rape and one first-degree felony count of forcible sodomy, following an incident involving two women, Tonya and Madison. Tonya alleged Dente sexually assaulted her after she discovered him with Madison. Before trial, Dente accepted a plea bargain, pleading guilty to one third-degree felony count of forcible sexual abuse in exchange for the dismissal of the more severe charges and the State’s agreement not to recommend prison.
During the change-of-plea hearing, Dente affirmed in writing and orally to the court that he understood the charges, the potential penalties, the rights he was waiving, and that his plea was voluntary. He also acknowledged he would be placed on the sex-offender registry. The district court accepted his plea, finding it was “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.”
A few weeks later, before sentencing, Dente hired new counsel and moved to withdraw his plea. He argued that his previous attorney (Counsel 3) failed to inform him about an investigation report from his first attorney (Counsel 1), which allegedly contained exculpatory evidence (a video of Madison dancing erotically and a witness claiming to have seen consensual sex). He also claimed Counsel 3 misadvised him about sentencing (guaranteed probation) and did not fully explain the consequences of sex-offender registration, such as restrictions on attending his son’s school events. Additionally, Dente and his parents testified that Counsel 3 pressured him to accept the plea deal.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing and denied Dente’s motion. The court found that Counsel 3 knew about the report’s contents, expressed doubts about the admissibility and strength of the alleged evidence, and noted Dente’s affirmations during the plea colloquy. The court also determined that Counsel 3’s advice to take the plea, which significantly reduced the charges, was reasonable and not coercive. Dente was subsequently sentenced to probation with some jail time, along with the sex-offender registration requirement.
Legal Issue(s): The Utah Court of Appeals considered three main issues:
• Did Dente’s plea lack understanding because he was unaware of certain details in an investigation report that might have provided defenses?
• Was Dente’s plea “unknowing” because he was not fully advised of every specific consequence of being placed on the sex-offender registry?
• Was Dente’s plea “involuntary” due to alleged pressure from his attorney to accept the plea offer?
Holding: The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, concluding that Dente failed to demonstrate his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily made.
• Regarding the investigation report: The court found that Dente understood the elements of the crime he was pleading to and that the unpresented “new” evidence was insufficient to render his plea “unknowing.” The court also noted the district court’s skepticism about the evidence’s relevance and strength.
• Regarding sex-offender registry consequences: The court reiterated that sex-offender registration is considered a “collateral consequence” under Utah law. A defendant’s plea can be valid even if they are not informed of every potential secondary effect of such consequences. Since Dente was informed of the general requirement to register, his lack of knowledge about specific restrictions (like attending school events) did not invalidate his plea.
• Regarding attorney pressure: The court determined that the statements made by Dente’s attorney were persuasive advice within appropriate professional bounds, not “threats or coercion.” The plea offer, which reduced multiple first-degree felony sexual offense charges to a single third-degree felony, was deemed a significant and favorable outcome, making the attorney’s advice reasonable.
Why It Matters: This case sets explains precedent for defendants seeking to withdraw guilty pleas in Utah. It reinforces that withdrawing a plea is a challenging process, especially after the court has accepted it through a proper plea colloquy. The decision clarifies that a plea is considered “knowing” if the defendant understands the essential elements of the crime and the basic constitutional rights waived, even if they later uncover potential (and often unproven) alternative evidence or regret their decision.
Crucially for those facing sexual offenses, this ruling solidifies that while counsel should inform clients about sex-offender registration, not every single specific detail or collateral effect of that registration needs to be explained for a plea to be valid. It also offers guidance on what constitutes acceptable advice versus undue pressure from a criminal defenseattorney during plea negotiations, emphasizing that strong advice to accept a beneficial plea deal is not considered coercion.
Takeaway for Defendants: If you are facing criminal charges, particularly sexual offenses, and considering a plea agreement, it is vital to have an experienced criminal defense attorney. They can help you thoroughly understand the charges, the constitutional rights you are waiving, and all direct consequences of your plea, including requirements like sex-offender registration. While your attorney will provide expert advice on the best course of action, the ultimate decision to plead guilty is yours, and it must be a voluntary and informed choice. Be aware that withdrawing a guilty plea once it has been accepted by the court is a difficult process, and the burden of proving it was not knowingly or voluntarily made rests heavily on the defendant.