Far West Bank v Robertson

Robertson appealed the deficiency judgment entered against him. The panel affirmed. It held that Robertson’s counterclaims were properly dismissed because the note and loan agreements here had integration clauses and the alleged breach of a servicing term was in fact not a breach as bank acted within the authority to terminate granted by the servicing term and the effort to sneak the serving clause back in through an email was not admissible under the parole evidence rule and there can be no bad faith claim absent a term in the contract. It affirmed summary judgment as to the notice of sale here as Robertson did not raise his objections until after the sale and failed to prove prejudice as the amount received from the sale exceed the fair market value. It affirmed summary judgment as to Robertson’s claim he did not get a timely payoff statement as he failed to provide any admissible evidence he made a request through an approved delivery method. It held Robertson’s expert witness was properly excluded as he did not disclose the witness before trial and finally warded bank attorney fees on appeal.

State v Calvert

Calvert appealed his aggravated Assault and use of a dangerous weapon convictions. The panel affirmed. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel based on double jeopardy principles as a motion to merge the two crimes would have been futile as the dangerous weapon charge requires proof that two or more people were present when Calvert pointed a gun at victim here; a motion to dismiss based on multiplicity would have failed as the charges were for different crimes; and the decision to not seek a lesser included offense was a strategic decision as conceded by Calvert. It held any error in allowing testimony about a prior incident where Calvert threatened a neighbor was harmless given multiple eyewitnesses testified Calvert pointed a gun at victim and turned on the laser siting light on victim, evidence the firearm was recovered from where witnesses said it was hidden and the fact Calvert’s account shifted over time and was uncorroborated plus the fact the incident was not mentioned in argument and a limiting instruction was given. It finally held that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to object to a prosecution laptop going into the jury room during deliberations as Calvert failed to demonstrate the laptop’s presence denied him counsel or a jury trial and he failed to provide any evidence supporting his contention there as extraneous material on the laptop or that it was used for improper purposes.

State v Jervis

Jervis appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. The panel affirmed. It held that in the totality of the circumstances, namely Jarvis was observed in a  car parked away from available rooms in a hotel parking lot off a freeway and the car did not have a front license plate, the detaining officer had reasonable suspicion that Jarvis had ether driven on the freeway without a plate or was about to drive on a public road without a plate either of which violate Utah Code 41-1a-505(5), the fact that Utah statue may have barred arrest here did not change the result as the United states Supreme Court has hele even arrests done in violation of state law do not necessarily violate the 4th Amendment. It also held that the request for identification and warrant search here were within eth scope of allowed activity during a traffic stop.

In re K.B., B.B., and  L.B. (R.B. v State)

R.B. appealed the order establishing protective supervision for the children. The panel affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It held that the juvenile court erred in finding R.B. emotionally abused the children as one parent hating another and one parent interfering with parenting time in themselves are not abuse under Utah precedent as there was no evidence of serious impairment of any child’s growth, behavior development or psychological functioning. It affirmed the finding that K.B. was abused as R.B. slapped her and other wise was physically violent towards her ion one occasion and also affirmed that B.B. and L.B. were neglected as matter law as they lived at the house at the time of the abuse, but, reversed the finding that K.B. was neglected based on the finding as to B.B. and L.B. as this would result in only children having less protection under Utah law and would essentially eliminate neglect as separate concept in the statute. It also ordered the juvenile court on remand to consider anew the issue of whether protective supervision should be ordered and prohibited the substantiation of the abuse finding in its analysis as the use was not severe.

State v Wynn

Wynn appealed the denial of his motions to set aside his sentence as illegal, correct a clerical error and set aside the judgment in his case. The panel affirmed. It held Wynn’s motion to set aside his sentence as illegal was correctly denied as it was not a vehicle to allege ineffective assistance of counsel. It held that there was no clerical error to correct as Wynn’s claim is directed at the district court’s reasoning about the restitution order not the recording of that order.  It affirmed denial of his judgment set aside motion as Wynn should have know the basis of his motion nearly two years before filing his motion and there was abuse of discretion in finding the delay was unreasonable under the circumstances. It finally held that because the sentence here is legal, no discovery could be ordered.

Rojas v Labor Commission

Rojas sought review of Commission’s decision denying his request for increased befits based on willful safety violation. The panel affirmed. Applying the Utah Supreme Court standard of “deliberate defiance of a safety rule with no plausible purpose, the panel held that employer here did not deliberately defy the rule in question as the manager did not disable the safety sensor, know how to do it or know that allowing employees to remove a panel to view the machine in operation required disabling the sensor.

Thompson v Wardley Corporation

Thompson appealed an order dismissing her complaint and an order denying motion to file a post judgment motion. The panel summarily disposed the appeal as it lacked jurisdiction over the dismissal order as the notice of appeal was file too late and the post judgment motion would have been futile as the amended complaint had the same claims as the dismissed complaint.

McQuarrie v McQuarrie

Husband appealed the dismissal of the parties’ motions to modify the divorce decree. The panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the order entered in this case awarded wife attorney fees but left the amount to be determined later and thus no final order or judgment has been entered.