The public defender for a man whose sex-offense sentence allegedly was reduced by a controversial judge wants the case sent back to that judge for clarification.

The lawyer, John Pace, filed a reply Monday outlining that argument, which came as a response to a motion filed Friday with the Utah Court of Appeals by the Utah Attorney General's Office.

James Robert Scott, 46, was sentenced Feb. 10 by 3rd District Judge Leslie Lewis to 30 years in prison for molesting a 6-year-old girl. Scott was guilty of three counts of first-degree felony sodomy on a child.

But Scott's then-attorney Roger Kraft recently said he had been told by Lewis during a later phone call that she would reduce the sentence by 10 years, but she asked that Kraft not say anything to prosecutors. If that is true, it is a violation of judicial conduct rules.

Kraft reported the call to the Salt Lake District Attorney's Office, which investigated, filed a complaint about Lewis with the Judicial Conduct Commission and asked the Attorney General's Office to make sure the first sentence stood.

"From our standpoint, the original sentence was the only valid sentence, and the second one is illegal and was illegally imposed," assistant attorney general Laura Dupaix told the Deseret Morning News.

Dupaix also wants an evidentiary hearing and wants Lewis to be disqualified from presiding over anything else involving this case. However, Pace argues that it is unclear what the Feb. 10 sentence really was. He said court documents show three 10-year prison terms that would run consecutively.

But Pace wrote in his reply there also are three amended orders, each dated Feb. 10, that show the court "varied its decision as to concurrent versus consecutive sentences ... "

One amended entry shows the first two counts should run concurrently with each other with the third running consecutively with the fourth — making a total of 20 years in prison. But two other amended entries call for three consecutive sentences — which would mean 30 years.

Pace also argues an evidentiary hearing is unnecessary and the Attorney General's Office has not provided sufficient basis for Lewis to recuse herself. Instead, he wants the appeals court to remand the case back to Lewis to clarify what sentence she intended for Scott and to address "the process surrounding entry" of the information in the court record.

"Every judge errs from time to time," Pace wrote. "If, on remand, it appears the sentencing court in this case erred, the parties enjoy a full panoply of options for correcting the error, whether in district court or on appeal. A mere error, if indeed one was committed ... does not require recusal."

---

E-mail: lindat@desnews.com