Rusk v University of Utah Healthcare Risk Management

Rusk appealed the dismissal of his medical malpractice and tortious interference claims. The panel summarily affirmed as the complaint merely set out the elements of the claims without any factual allegations and the factual material added in an appendix on appeal were before the district court, they did not set out any support for Rusk’s claims.

In the Interests of D.N., O.A. and N.A. (A.A. v State)

A.A. appealed the termination of her parental rights. The panel affirmed. It held evidence A.A. used methamphetamine while in inpatient treatment, visited her children’s father while on weekend pass against program rules, told father she was going to use drugs again after treatment and had care of the children while on drugs supported the finding of lack of parental adjustment and termination was in the children’s interests as mother cannot house or support the children while their foster parents can and wish to adopt.

State v Phillips

Phillips appealed the revocation of his probation the Panel affirmed. It held the fact that the probation department failed to supervise Phillips did not end his probation as only the judiciary has power to sentence a person to probation and to end the sentence through revocation. It held Phillps’ belief he did not need to follow the terms of his probation due to lack of supervision was unreasonable as the sentencing judge told Phillips failure to follow the conditions could result in the execution of his 5 to life sentence.

Cooper v Dressel

Dressel appealed the denial of their motion to set aside a default judgment. The panel reversed, vacated the judgment and remanded. It held that under Utah case law, personal service at the usual place of abode requires proof that the person served actually lived at the address and here the only evidence in the record was Dressel used the address in question to forward mail and the person who answered the door stated Dressel did not live there and affirmed that in an affidavit and the evidence did not prove Dressel actually lived at the address in question.

State v Lineberry

Lineberry appealed his sentence. The panel affirmed holding the sentencing judge properly considered character evidence submitted on Lineberry’s behalf, the seriousness of the underlying crime of disarming a police officer and eh danger posed by Lineberry in light of his significant criminal history and thus did not abuse its discretion in imposing a prison term instead of probation.

State v Aponte

Aponte appealed his convictions for failure to stop and other crimes arising from a high speed chase and crash. The panel affirmed. It held the witness identification of Aponte from a single phot was not inappropriately suggestive as the passenger in the car, who was a friend of Aponte, identified him and the two witnesses who viewed the photo only confirmed that identification. It held that Aponte did not raise his challenges to the jury instruction about his prior convictions and thus they were not preserved.