State v Poole

Poole appealed the restitution order in his case arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. The panel, with two judges joining the panel opinion and adding a separate concurrence, agreed and vacated the order. The panel held that the district court did not lose jurisdiction when it granted Poole early release as the district court only stated an anticipated closing and did not actually close the case. However, the panel held the district court lacked jurisdiction because no order was entered within the one year period after sentencing allowed by statute and a statement by the district court that it would impose restitution does not qualify as it lacked an amount to pay The panel held the one year period is jurisdictional because the statute directs that orders “shall” be entered within one year of sentencing and the 2005 amendments demonstrate that the legislature intended to end district court jurisdiction after one year when a defendant is sent to prison and thus the same jurisdictional meaning must be ascribed n the probation context. The panel noted this conclusion does treat prisoners and probationers differently as prisoners can have restitution imposed during their sentence plus 60 additional days, but, stated this different treatment arises of the plain language of the statute. The concurrence called upon the legislature to change the disparate treatment of prisoners and probationers to better serve the interest of making crime victim’s whole.

Jackson v State

Jackson appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief. The panel summarily affirmed. It held that trial counsel was not ineffective when she failed to raise a statute of limitations defense to a lesser charge as objectively it was reasonable to offer the jury an alternative to conviction of first degree rape or setting Jackson free.

State v Collins

Collins appealed the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The panel affirmed. It held the district court properly determined that Collins was voluntarily entering his guilty plea by asking about Collins’ understanding of the terms of his agreement and stating the rights given up by pleading guilty. It further held that the motion to withdraw was properly denied because Collins only demonstrated confusion about the terms of his agreement at the time of his withdrawal motion and thus failed to show lack of understanding at the time of the plea.

Cundey v Department of Workforce Services

Cundy appealed Department’s ruling that his appeal of the initial decision in his case was late. The panel summarily affirmed holding failure to read the initial decision was not good cause to file the appeal late.

Walker I Investments, LLC v Sunpeak Association, Inc.

Walker sued Association seeking access to certain records. The district court granted access to some records but not a list of the email addresses and phone numbers to other Association members. It also denied Walker’s request for attorney fees. The panel, 2-1 as to the records and 3-0 as to attorney fees, affirmed. The majority held that the Utah nonprofit corporations act allows the nonprofit corporation to satisfy a demand for records by providing names and addresses of the members which was done here as thus walker was not entitled to the phone numbers and email addresses. The dissent on this issue argued that the request for the emails and phone numbers was controlled by a different subsection and satisfied that subsection because the request directly related to the purpose of seeing if Association was operating under conflicts of interest and the district court erred in adding additional requirements that Walker use less efficient means of communication in contacting other members about Association’s conduct. The panel held that Walker failed to develop its argument about attorney fees and therefore affirm the denial of its request.

Hi-Country Estates Homeowners Association v The Jesse Rodney Dansie Living Trust

Trust appealed the summary judgment granted to Association on its claim for unjust enrichment and the award of attorney fees. The panel affirmed. It held Trust failed to adequately brief its challenge to the summary judgment as it failed to cite to the record, attach important documents or explain why a related case did not support Association here. It held that trust only challenged one of two grounds relied upon by the district court in support of the attorney fee award and affirmed on that basis.

In the interest of R.M. (W.M. v State)

W.M. appealed the termination of his parental rights. The panel affirmed holding that W.M. signed a relinquishment of rights and the relinquishment was voluntary.