State v Jaramillo

Jaramillo appealed his convictions and part of his sentence. The panel affirmed the convictions and remanded for further proceedings on the sentence. It first denied Jaramillo’s motion for a remand to present evidence on his ineffective assistance claim as he failed to set out the mental state elements of the crimes he was convicted of and how his intoxication defense would negate those elements. It held Jaramillo failed to prove ineffective assistance here because he did not provide record evidence trial counsel knew he took 15 Xanax and in any event voluntary intoxication would not have negated any of mental state elements. The panel reversed the sentence for aggravated kidnapping and remanded for further proceedings because the district court field to do the statutorily required interests of justice analysis which must include consideration of proportionality by comparing Jaramillo’s sentence to those of more and less serious crimes. The panel also invited the district court to look again at Jaramillo’s potential for rehabilitation.

Granger v Granger

Wife appealed the division of husband’s retirement account and husband cross appealed the denial of his motion for attorney fees incurred for a hearing on the retirement account issue. The panel reversed on the appeal and dismissed the cross-appeal as moot. It held that while general contract principles apply in the divorce context, the division of property is controlled by equity absent a freely entered agreement to the contrary. It held that the Woodward formula the parties purported to agree to use here was established in a Utah Supreme Court case involving a defined benefit retirement plan with no ascertainable present value and did not deal with a defined contribution plan like husband’s here. It held there was no meeting of the minds about what was meant by the Woodward formula as husband and wife had different understandings of it. It finally held that husband’s proposed division was based on his understanding of the formula, the division was not based on an examination of equity under all the circumstances and thus remand was necessary for a proper equity analysis.

Sandy City v Lawless

Lawless appealed her conviction for being an escort without a City license. The panel affirmed holding that Lawless had abandoned her constitutional challenge to the state statue she attacked on appeal and thus waived her claim.

Hollenbach v Salt Lake City Corporation

Hollenbach appealed the administrative dismissal of his appeal of his discharge from eh police department. The panel reversed and remanded. It held the issue of whether Hollenbach timely appealed his dismissal was preserved as the civil service commission raised the issue of what “filing” meant and thus had a chance to consider the issue. It held that under Utah Code 63-3.8.5, reports submitted to political subdivisions of Utah are considered filed when the post office cancellation stamp indicates it was processed and report in that statute is broad term covering such things as requests for hearing or a claim against a government entity for tort damages. Thus, then panel held 8.5 controlled here and the date of filing is the date of the post office cancellation. It also held that the commission here is not a court and thus the rules of procedure do not control when the appeal here was filed.

Baden-Brown v Labor Commission

Baden-Brown appealed the denial of her application for disability benefits. The panel affirmed. It held Commission had a reasonable basis to not order a hearing on the independent medical panel report as the record as a whole demonstrated that Baden-Brown reached maximum medical improvement before she applied for benefits and there was no causal connection between her work related accident and her symptoms today. It held that there was no evidence of bias by the panel chair and thus no basis to exclude the report.

In re J.B.

Mother appealed the finding that J.B. and his sibling were neglected children. The panel affirmed. It held that even if the juvenile court erred in allowing hearsay evidence about how J.B. ended up with the neighbors, children services came and tried to contact mother and only took J.B. and his sibling into custody because the neighbors could not care for them. It held that mother’s other arguments were waived as her counsel stated the issues were resolved in the juvenile court’s amend findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Sherratt v Department of Corrections

Sherratt appealed the dismissal of his complaint seeking access to certain documents. The panel summarily affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held the district court correctly dismissed the Rule of Civil Procedure 65 portion of the complaint as Sherratt had a remedy under Utah code 63G-2-404. However, the complaint also clearly stated that Sherratt was seeking judicial review under 404 and thus that part of the complaint should not have been dismissed.

State v Saenz

Saenz appealed his murder and other convictions arguing the district court erred in questioning him about his decision to not testify in front of the jury. The panel, while acknowledging concerns about the practice of questioning a defendant about the decision to not testify, affirmed holding Saenz failed to present any evidence of, let alone demonstrate, prejudice.

Crane-Jenkins v Mikarose, LLC

Mikarose and another defendant appealed the attorney fee ward against them. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held that the other defendant preserved her challenge to the fee award by filing an opposition but Mikarose failed to preserve the issue and in any event the district court did proper analysis and demonstrated by the exclusion of certain parts of the fee request as unrelated to the defense of the default judgment here. The panel agreed that part of the fee ward had to reversed as it covered legal fees exclusively incurred in litigation against a third defendant. It held two other issues unpreserved. It awarded fees on appeal to Crane-Jenkins and remanded for Cal caution of the fee amount.