State of Utah v. Gallegos

Annotate this Case
State v. Gallegos. Filed February 17, 2000 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Joseph Gallegos,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990909-CA

F I L E D
February 17, 2000
  2000 UT App 43 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Parley R. Baldwin

Attorneys:
Maurice Richards, Ogden, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Billings.

PER CURIAM:

A notice of appeal must be filed with the trial court "within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from." Utah R. App. P. 4(a). However, a timely motion for new trial tolls the thirty-day appeal period and the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days "from the entry of the order denying a new trial." Utah R. App. P. 4(b).

Gallegos was sentenced by the trial court on March 17, 1999. Two days later, he filed a motion for new trial. See Utah R. Crim. P. 24(c) (requiring motion for new trial be filed "within 10 days after imposition of sentence"). On May 18, 1999, the trial court denied Gallegos's motion for new trial and on June 14, 1999, he filed a notice of appeal.(1) This resulted in appeal number 990531-CA. Months later on October 19, 1999, Gallegos's counsel filed a notice of appeal seeking to appeal Gallegos's conviction and sentence. This notice of appeal is untimely and superfluous. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal, case number 990909-CA.
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

1. On November 25, 1999, Gallegos filed a premature motion for new trial after the verdict, but before sentencing. See State v. Vessey, 957 P.2d 1239, 1240 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (stating motion for new trial filed before sentencing is untimely). This motion does not impact the appeal because he filed a subsequent motion for new trial on March 19, 1999.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.