Rose v Office of Professional Conduct

Rose appealed her disbarment arguing the Utah disciplinary process is unconstitutional. The Court affirmed. It first declared Rose’s briefing inadequate as it was void of citation to authority or the record and had no reasoning and indeed was bizarre and incomprehensible. The Court addressed issues it could discern form the brief and held that Utah district courts have jurisdiction over professional misconduct by Utah lawyers committed in federal courts, lack of sanctions in federal and tribal courts did not bar the discipline proceeding here under res judicata or Article III of the Constitution, Rose’s equal protection argument failed to identify anything  beyond lawyers as a class which is utterly insufficient, failed to explain why the federal approach to attorney discipline makes the Utah system violate of due process, failed to explain how the composition of the screening panel violated any due process right or voided o the judgment of the district court, failed to provide any factual support for her claims that Office committed misconduct under the rules of civil procedure, held an earlier petition for extraordinary relief was frivolous and done for purposes of delay and remanded for calculation of an attorney fee award to office and finally told anyone in the future believing a stay motion was improperly denied to provide reasoning in support of that argument instead of  attacking the Court member signing the order.

State v Francis

Francis appealed the district court’s order denying his motion to enforce a plea agreement. The Court affirmed. It held that The State has the right to withdraw a plea offer at any time before the trial court accepts it unless the defendant has reasonably and detrimentally relied on tea agreement and here there was no such reliance as Francis actually argued the motions he claims to have foregone, a continuance was granted after the withdrawal here and thus Francis did not go to trial unprepared, a potentially unavailable witness is insufficient absent evidence of prejudice and potentially greater expert witness fees do not rise to detrimental reliance.