Ruth B. Hardy Revocable Trust v Rindlesbach

Rindlesbach appealed the denial of his motion to set aside a writ of attachment for describing the property to be sold as all property owned by the trust Rindlesbach serves as trustee. The panel reversed and remanded. It held that on the facts of this case, a claim against Sarasota Springs should have been identified in the writ, but, held the other items identified by Rindlesbach were speculative or of no value. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The panel denied Rindlesbach’s motion or attorney fees as the property will be sold again albeit after being properly described.

State v Isom

Isom appealed his convictions for child sex abuse and rape. The panela affirmed. It held his due process claim was not preserved as it was raised in Isom’s reply brief and not developed at all. It held that his sufficiency of the evidence claim was not preserved as he failed to raise it in district court. It held that there was no plain error as to the prosecutor’s argument that the jury put themselves in the victim’s shoes as the argument was directed at the victim’s credibility as witness, was not obviously wrong and there was plausible strategic reasons for Isom’s counsel to not object. The panel held any error in putting a barrier between the victim and Isom was harmless as the victim’s testimony was helpful to Isom and other evidence established his guilt. The panel held that Isom failed to preserve his arguments about the close circuit testimony by the victim and thus did not address them. It held that there was improper leading questioning of the victim as almost all the questions were not leading and those that were used appropriately. The panel finally held that there was no ineffective assistance of counsel for failing tom object to other sexual behaviors by a witness as counsel used those statements to impeach the witness and this was a permissible trial strategy.

Brown v Babbitt

Babbitt appealed the child custody and visitation provisions in the parties divorce decree. The panel affirmed. It held that while Babbitt’s notice of appeal failed to identify the decree as the order appealed from, his intent to do so was clear and brown suffered no prejudice. The panel held that by failing to put the facts in the brief and failing to argue sufficiency as opposed to credibility, the district court factual findings were affirmed. The panel also affirmed the visitation order as Babbitt had no relationship with the child or with three other children of his, defied a court order and made plans to kidnap the child all supporting the plan with less than the statutory minimum.

State v Post

Post appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed, but, remanded to resolve objections to the presentence report. The panel held that Post’s argument that he was statutorily entitled to drug screening was unpreserved and any error was not obvious as Post had previously been screened and refused treatment report itself likely constituted a screening. The panel remanded to resolve challenges to the report which were left unaddressed at the hearing.

State v Allen

Allen appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed holding that Allen failed to show a reasonable probability that his sentence would have changed if his trial attorney raised mental illness as a defense given the district court had the mental illness concerns before it and sentenced Allen to jail anyway.

State v Flores

Flores appealed the denial of his motion for directed verdict on three counts of child kidnapping. Tea panel affirmed holding any error as to one child was invited by Flores’ counsel admitting evidence existed as to presence and there was testimony that Flores threatened to kill the children which satisfies Utah law in that that the restraint in child kidnapping can be done by any means.

Brodkin v Tuhaye Golf, LLC

Brodkin sued Golf arguing he was a third party beneficiary to certain development and easement agreements concerning land surrounding his land. The district court granted summary judgment to golf. The panel affirmed. It held the agreements were unambiguous and neither Brodkin nor his predecessor in title were parties to or beneficiaries of the agreement. The panel also affirmed the award of attorney fees to Golf under Utah Supreme Court precedent that suing to obtain a benefit under a contract triggers the attorney fee provisions in that contract which occurred here.