Ostler v Retirement Board and Salt Lake Community College

Ostler appealed the denial of his application or retirement benefits. The panel affirmed. It held that under the plain language of 49-11-501(5), Ostler lost 15 years’ worth of credits when he withdrew his contributions and the fact that employer contributions remained was irrelevant as the withdrawal triggered forfeiture as to all contributions and the statute does not provide any mechanism to have service credit base only on remaining employer contributions and provides no claim against the remaining contributions by the employee. It held that Ostler’s claim that College failed to enroll him into a retirement plan was barred by claim preclusion as he raised the issue in an earlier suit against College about the same issue and did not appealed the judgment in College’s favor.McCamey v State

McCamey appealed summary judgment to State on his post-conviction relief petition. The panel affirmed. It held that McCamey waived his claim that his charges were brought after the statute of limitations ran as he failed to raise it at trial or on appeal and in any event, he waived it by pleading guilty to reduced charges. It held there was no ineffective assistance of counsel by his plea attorney because the communications between the parole officer and the police and resulting investigation into possible offenses by McCamey against victim did not provide actual notice of an offense as the communication was only about suspicious circumstances and victim denied abuse occurred and thus any motion to dismiss on limitations grounds would have been futile.

State v Sanchez-Granado

Sanchez-Granado appealed the denial of his motion to suppress. The panel affirmed. It held there was no clear error in the district court’s determination that the detaining officers here had reasonable suspicion based on their experience in investigating drug crimes and the facts that Sanchez-Granado and his passenger sat in a car in a store parking lot for 20 minutes making cell phone calls, did not go into the store, two vehicles came by the car and the passengers got into the car all of which was consistent with drug sales observed in that lot.

In the Interests of A.B. and A.R. (L.E. v State)

L.E. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed holding evidence L.E. hit the children with a belt and a cord, choked and punched them and one had a scar consistent with being burned with a cigarette and was convicted of felony abuse based on these events and is currently incarcerated with no prospect of establishing a normal home within a year was sufficient to support eh ground of neglect and abuse and termination is in the children’s best interests as they have bonded with their foster family and both foster parents and children wish to proceed with an adoption and L.E. understood her right to counsel having been appointed two attorneys and she chose to go to trial without counsel after her motion to postpone the trial was denied.