State v Courtney

Courtney appealed his drug and drug paraphernalia possession convictions. The panel affirmed. It held any errors in admitting evidence of a different uncharged drug buy and any deficient performance by trial counsel were harmless given Courtney’s admissions on the stand that he used drugs and had sold them in the past, his incredible explanation for why he had baggies in his pocket, his recorded instructions to his girlfriend to lie about whether the windows to her car were up or down, his testimony he wanted his girlfriend to leave town to avoid testifying and a witness he wanted subpoenaed would have been cumulative as other witnesses testified the list of debts owed found in Courtney’s pocket did not belong to him.

State v Hoffman

Hoffman appealed the revocation of his probation and reinstatement of his prison sentence. The panel affirmed. It held there was no error in the district court’s finding that Hoffman willfully violated probation as Hoffman’s learning disabilities did not prevent him from completing sex offender treatment assignments and did not excuse his inability to participate in group therapy or his use of pornography. It also held the district court did not error in concluding Hoffman’s past failures to complete therapy and the unavailability of inpatient treatment meant Hoffman should be imprisoned.

Jensen v Ruflin

Ruflin appealed the district court’s rejection of his objection to a protective order. The panel affirmed. It held Jensen’s petition for a protective order was not barred by claim preclusion as the Utah Code 78B-7-108 requires each party to bring a separate suit and thus Jensen’s claim could not be brought in the protective order action brought earlier by Ruflin, held the order entered here was properly entered as Ruflin was found to have initiated the confrontation here and to extended the confrontation and the motion or a continuance was properly denied as the failure to hold the hearing within the 20 day deadline in Utah Code 78B-7-107 was Ruflin’s fault given his filing two amendments to his objection and his decision to hire new counsel just before the hearing.

Par Electrical v Labor Commission

Par sought review of Commission’s decision affirming an award of permanent total disability benefits to a former employee. The panel denied the petition. It first held that Par waived any arguments to medical causation by failing to make it before the administrative law judge or the commission. It rejected Par’s arguments about the employee’s ability to do other work and about the medical panel report as Par did not analyze the basis of the judge’s and Commission’s decisions and thus failed to demonstrate error.

State v England

England appealed the restitution order in his criminal case. The panel vacated and remanded. It held that the district court properly used the purchase price of the car illegally sold to a junk yard plus modifications paid for as that was the best estimate of what the value to the victim here, but, the award of the full purchase price was err as the engine was not in the car when stolen and thus the engine was not taken for restitution purposes and the amount of restitution must be recalculated by deducting the value of the engine.

Gollahar v State

Gollahar appealed the denial of his petition for extraordinary relief. The panel affirmed. It held that Gallaher failed to analyze the basis of the district court decision and thus failed to demonstrate any error.

State v Miller

Miller appealed his lewdness conviction. The panel affirmed holding Miller knew or should have stepping outside bottomless exposing one’s genitals to a minor was likely to cause alarm or affront and thus the evidence was sufficient to convict.

In the Interests of J.S. (J.R. v State)

J.R. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed holding evidence J.R. uses methamphetamine and has not overcome that addiction supported termination of her rights.