State v Arghittu

The State appealed the dismissal of felony drug analog charges against Arghittu. The panel reversed. The panel held it had jurisdiction because the magistrate dismissed under Criminal Rule 7(i)(3) for lack of probable cause and these types of dismissal orders are appealable. The panel reversed the dismissal holding there was probable cause to sustain the analog charge given the testimony that the substance was virtually identical to a listed controlled synthetic marijuana and had similar effects. The panel held that under Article I, Section 12 of the Utah constitution, constitutionality of statutes cannot be decided ad thus the magistrate erred in considering such challenges. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v Worthington

Company paid off a mechanic’s lien and sued Worthington alleging fraud, civil conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court granted summary judgment to Worthington. The panel affirmed. It held Company failed to adequately plead fraud as there were no allegations specifically about Worthington and in any event a failure to disclose is not actionable unless a duty to disclose exists and the complaint failed to establish any duty. It affirmed as to conspiracy as no facts were pled which demonstrate a meeting of minds to commit fraud. It affirmed as to fiduciary duty as the complaint failed to demonstrate Worthington did any acts in furtherance of the alleged breaches and thus failed to state a claim.

Shedron-Easly v Easly

Shedron-Esly appealed the denial of her Rule 60(b) motion. The panel affirmed noting Shedron-Esly failed to demonstrate any medical necessity to postpone the trial and thus there was no ground to grant relief form the resulting judgment.

In the Interests of L.B. (L.B. v B.Z. and J.Z.)

L.B. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held abandonment was proved by the evidence that L.B. made minimal efforts to contact the child and the termination was in the child’s best interests because stepfather J.Z. has made child a priority and wants to adopt her.

State v Samul

Samul moved to withdraw his guilty plea and to amend his sentence. The district court initially agreed to postpone decision on the motions, but, issued a corrected judgment the same day. It later ruled the other motions either untimely or outside the jurisdiction of the court. The panel affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part. It held the failure to allow Samul to allocate before correcting the concede illegal sentence was not error as Samul’s sentence was lowered, the decision did not involve reasoning or decision making and Samul had opportunity to be heard at the initial sentencing. The panel affirmed the denial of the withdrawal motions as correcting the illegal sentence did not restart the 30 day period to move to withdraw his guilty pleas which had been entered 9 years before corrected sentence. The panel reversed as to a claim that the original sentencing judge failed to advise Samul of his appeal rights noting there was no evidence in the record that Samul was ever informed of these rights and remanded for further proceedings to determine if the time for appeal should be reset.