With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Thus, because defendant did not request a full restitution hearing at or before sentencing and had no good cause not to make the request, he waived his entitlement to a restitution hearing. See Utah R.Crim. P. 12(d). ¶ 11 Defendant argues that the trial court, in effect, waived his waiver because he asserts the hearing on his motion after sentencing amounted to a restitution hearing. In support of his position defendant cites to the following cases: State v. Seale, 853 P.2d 862, 870 (Utah 1993) (concluding when issue raised in motion for new trial for first time, and court addressed issue on merits in denying motion and considered alleged error rather than finding it waived, defendant's right to assert issue on appeal was resuscitated); State v. Belgard, 830 P.2d 264, 266 (Utah 1992) (<HOLDING>); State v. Johnson, 821 P.2d 1150, 1161 (Utah

A: holding when defendant waived objection to introduction of evidence but evidentiary hearing granted and judge considered claim defendants waiver was effectively waived by judge
B: holding that where defendants counsel objected to the trial judges evidentiary rulings in evidentiary hearing but did not object to the defendants absence any claim of error due to defendants absence had been waived
C: holding that defendants waived any challenge to the trial courts failure to hold an evidentiary hearing
D: holding that party waived an objection to choice of law
A.