State v Kropf

Kropf pled guilty to two counts of stalking. No permanent injunction was entered at the time of his sentencing. After Kropf was paroled, the victim petitioned for entry of a permanent criminal injunction which the district court granted. The panel affirmed. It held that under 76-5-106.5(9), entry of a permanent criminal injunction is mandatory based on the use of “shall” in the operative subsection and the structure of the statute as a whole. It further held that the hearing allowed fewer than 106.5(9) is only to work out the details, that a later clarifying amendment confirms the panel’s reading and the use of “application” in 106.5(9) is meant to trigger the issuance of the injunction rather than have the victim take some affirmative step. It also held that because the mandatory injunction was omitted, Kropf’s sentence was illegal under Utah precedent and an illegal sentence can be corrected at any time even after the defendant has been paroled. It held that correcting an illegal sentence does not violate double jeopardy and Kropf received notice of the hearing, attended the hearing and had no right to contest the issuance of the injunction and thus there was no due process violation.

In the Interests of F.L. (F.L. v State)

F.L. appealed the juvenile court’s decision to bind him over for trial as an adult. The panel vacated and remanded for new hearing. It held that the juvenile court made errors in evaluating three of the five stator factors because it focused its culpability analysis on the commission of the crimes involved and not on comparisons of F.L.’s conduct with those of the other participants; failed to consider F.L’s conduct on the spectrum of violence or aggressiveness; and included the pending charges in the analysis of prior juvenile adjudications.

Oliver v Labor Commission

Oliver sought review of Commission’s reversible of the administrative law judge’s order awarding him permanent disability benefits. The panel granted review and reinstated the award. It held Commission used the wrong standard I evaluating the claim by imposing a reasonableness standard on limitations to do work. Under the correct standard, the record showed that Oliver experiences pain in his left leg and must elevate the leg often which limits his ability to do work. The panel also held that a person is qualified for a job when, in addition to physical ability to do the job the person has the experience, competence and ability to do the job. Here, nothing in the record suggested tea Oliver had any training or other specialized experience or skills to do a delivery truck driver and thus Commission erred in concluding otherwise.

Malek v Bigelow

Malek field a complaint that he later told the district court was a petition for extraordinary writ. The district court granted summary judgment to Bigelow. The panel affirmed holding any error in treating eh complaint as a petition for extraordinary writ was invited by Malek, Malek failed to object to the district court treating it as a petition for extraordinary writ, there were no material facts in dispute and no evidence that Malek was exposed to asbestos during the period covered by the petition.

In the Matter of the Estate of Hildreth (Stacy Hildreth v Smith)

Stacy appealed the order appointing smith as the personal representative of the Estate. The panel summarily affirmed. It held Stacy failed to nominate anyone beside Smith within the timeframe set out by the district court and failed to demonstrate error in the appointment on appeal.