New York Avenue, LLC v Harrison

Harrison appealed summary judgment to New York on its breach of reals estate purchase contract claim and New York cross appealed the amount of damages and attorney fees. The panel, with one judge concurring in result, reversed and remanded. The majority held that the district court erred in ruling the contract allowed New York to indefinitely postpone closing by paying monthly extension payments as the essence of the agreement was to sell the property and get the purchase price to Harrison, the addendums imposed deadlines for seller’s disclosures due diligence and settlement in order to move the deal to completion and New York was bound to pay the purchase price once the deadlines passed. It held that the contract by allowing monthly extensions of the closing date lacked a time to perform element and thus under Utah Supreme Court precedent a reasonable time was allowed for closing and the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the issue which is a fact intensive question. It held that the district court erred in ruling Harrison’s decision to not accept a monthly extension payment which was conditional on accepting New York’s view of its ability to indefinitely postpone the closing was a breach of contract as the contract did not allow New York to indefinitely postpone, tenders must be unconditional and the meaning of the contract was already in litigation and Harrison was not requited to capitulate mid-litigation. It also held that by refusing the unlawful tender, settlement deadline became fixed, certain events had not been performed and thus it is unclear what the legal significance the fixed deadline plays and the district court was directed to reevaluate the legal effects of the parties’ actions in light of the decision here. The concurrence argued the district court correctly ruled that New York could indefinitely extend the deadline, but, agreed that failing to make an unconditional tender after rejection set the date to close and it appears New York breached.

State v Leiva-Perez

Leiva-Perez appealed his murder conviction arguing his confession was coerced. The panel affirmed. It held the confession was not coerced under Utah precedent as the interview lasted less than two hours, the interviewing officers were appropriately persistent in their efforts to get the truth, the false friend technique used was not coercive, there were no other deceptive techniques used, the threats of harsher punishment were troubling but not coercive as they did not do anything like describe execution techniques, there was no evidence that the police knew anything about Guatemalan justice and thus had no way to know that Leiva-Perez was susceptible to manipulation and Lieva-Perez brought up the murder weapon himself which connected him the murder.

State v Needham

Needham appealed his convictions for communications fraud and racketeering. The panel summarily affirmed as Needham voluntarily absented himself from the deposition he complained about not being at, his administrative discipline and the related civil suits did not trigger double jeopardy protections and all his other issues were inadequately briefed.

Todd v Board of Pardons and Parole

Todd appealed the dismissal of petition for extraordinary relief. The panel affirmed. It held that Utah’s indeterminate sentencing scheme has repeatedly been held constitutional, the sentencing guidelines do not create a liberty interest, the form rationale sheets used by the board have been upheld by the Utah Supreme Court and his due process argument was unpreserved.

State v Sexton

Sexton appealed his sentence arguing it should not have been consecutive to his other sentences. The panel affirmed. It held the district court properly considered Sexton’s need for drug rehabilitation, the seriousness of his offense of bringing drugs into a secure rehab facility, his four failed attempts at in patient rehab and other required factors and Sexton’s disagreement with how the district court weighed the factors is not grounds to reverse.

State v Fanton

Fenton appealed her probation condition that she serve jail time. The panel dismissed the appeal as moot as Fenton has already served her time, did not identify any collateral effects that would overcome mootness and failed to appeal the later revocation of her probation and thus any effects of the jail sentence at the revocation proceeding and prison sentence were not before the court.