State v Bingham

Bingham appealed his conviction for stalking. The panel affirmed. It held the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction as the district court found wife’s testimony as to being sent a text message to come to the apartment and get her stuff piled up in the kitchen, Bingham coming to her office and refusing to leave necessitating security removing him and walking wife to her car and Bingham arriving at wife’s new apartment minutes after she rented it credible and that a reasonable person would be scared in those circumstances. Consequently, Bingham’s motion for directed verdict was properly denied. The panel held that the lack of findings about intent did not require reversal as the totality of the evidence supported the guilty verdict which includes finding knowing or intentional violation. The panel finally rejected Bingham’s ineffective assistance of counsel argument as he failed to show what an expert would say about the effects of his dementia on his criminal culpability.

Alliant Techsystems, Inc. v Salt Lake County Board of Equalization

After remand from the Utah Supreme Court, the district court ruled that Alliant did not have exclusive control over land belonging to the United States Navy where is used the facilities and thus was not subject to tax under Utah Code 59-4-101. The panel affirmed. It held the district court properly applied the test set out by the Supreme Court and correctly ruled nonexclusive possession as the Navy had personnel on the property, controlled the activities on the property, could enter the property at will and required Aliant to do Navy work as a priority and get permission for other activities on the property. The panel held there was no abuse of discretion in the district court’s exclusion of the board’s expert as his report contained legal conclusions and the factual testimony would not have helped the district court resolve the issues in the case.

State v Friel

Friel appealed her sentence arguing prosecutorial misconduct by misrepresenting her plea agreement. The panel affirmed. It held that Friel failed to object to the alleged misrepresentation below and was thus only entitled to plain error review and there was no plain error as Friel pointed to nothing in the record which would have put the district court plainly on notice that the mischaracterization occurred.

State v Schmidt

Schmidt appealed the denial of his Rule of Criminal Procedure 22(e) motion to set ide revocation of probation. The panel dismissed as revocation of probation cannot be challenged using rule 22(e) as revocation is not a sentencing and in any event the revocation and sentence was legal as it was definite, not ambiguous had all required terms and was in the range authorized by statute.

Stokes v TLCAS, LLC

TLCAS appealed a judgment against it finding deceptive business practices in the sale of a truck to Stokes. The panel affirmed. It held the district court properly relied on Stokes testimony he didn’t sign a request for duplicate title as it was within Stokes’ personal knowledge and the signature was obviously different from those on other documents signed by Stokes. The panel affirmed the finding of deceptive and unconscionable practices as TLCAS only challenged one of two independent grounds and the ruling must therefore be affirmed. The panel finally held that TLCAS failed to adequately brief its other claims and thus rejected them.

Morningside Developers, LLC v Copper Hills Custom Homes, LLC

Copper appealed the reinstatement of a dismissal for failure to prosecute order. The panel affirmed. It first held that the order appealed reinstated an earlier dismissal under Rule of Judicial Administration 4-103 as the show cause order directed the parties to demonstrate the dismissal should not be reinstated and the analysis used was relevant to that issue not the issuance of a new order under Rule of Civil Procedure 41. The dismissal therefore had to be without prejudice and the order of dismissal with prejudiced was reversed on that tissue. The dismissal itself was affirmed given the dilatory conduct of Copper and its failure to comply with the requirement to be ready for trial within 90 days of the reinstatement of the case.

Brian High Development, LC v Brian Head Town

Brian appealed the judgment entered against it on its inverse condemnation, equal protection and breach of contract claims. The panel affirmed. It held the inverse condemnation claim was barred under claim preclusion as Brian’s predecessor in interest raised an inverse condemnation claim in an earlier suit and it was rejected on the merits. The panela affirmed on the equal protection claim as Brian failed to plead an element of his claim and the breach of contract claim as Brian failed to set out the factual basis of his claim in the memorandum in opposition to summary judgment.

Sivulich v Department of Workforce Services

Sivulich appealed the denial of his application for unemployment benefits. The panel held that because Suvulich failed to identify where in the record he raised the issues to be reviewed, failed to cite to the record and failed to cite any legal authority, his brief was inadequate and the appealed was therefore dismissed.

Security National Life Insurance Company v Brunson

Brunson appealed a deficiency judgment entered for Security. The panel granted Security’s motion for summary disposition and affirmed. It held summary disposition was appropriate as the bankruptcy court allowed security to defend the appeal and all of Brunson’s arguments lacked merit as a credit bid is legal purchase of property at a trustee sale, security could seek deficiency while owning the property and collateral source rule did not apply.