State of Utah v. Maxfield

Annotate this Case
State of Utah v. Maxfield, Case No. 20000447-CA, Filed July 28, 2000 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Steven G. Maxfield,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000447-CA

F I L E D
July 28, 2000
  2000 UT App 232 -----

Fourth District, Fillmore Department
The Honorable Gary D. Stott

Attorneys:
Steven G. Maxfield, Kanosh, Appellant Pro Se
Brent G. Berkley, Fillmore, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Bench.

PER CURIAM:

Maxfield was convicted of driving without registration and operating a vehicle without insurance in justice court. He requested and received a trial de novo in district court where he was convicted of the same charges. On April 14, 2000, Maxfield's "Sentence, Judgment, Commitment" was prepared for the district court's signature, but was apparently never signed. Thus, there is no final order in the case. See Hinkins v. Santi, 25 Utah 2d 324, 482 P.2d 53, 54 (1971) (holding defendant's sentence must be in writing to be final).

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there is no final order.(1)
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge

1. Even if the district court had signed a formal appealable order, i.e., the "Sentence, Judgment, Commitment," we would not have jurisdiction to consider Maxfield's appeal because the court did not rule on any issue regarding constitutionality: The judgment after trial de novo may not be appealed unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120 (Supp. 1999) (emphasis added); see alsoCity of Kanab v. Guskey, 965 P.2d 1065, 1068-69 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (concluding that since defendant had appealed from justice court to district court and had not raised constitutional issue, his right of appeal was exhausted and court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider matter); City of Monticello v. Christensen, 769 P.2d 853, 854-55 (Utah Ct. App. 1989), aff'd, 788 P.2d 513, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 841, 111 S. Ct. 120 (1990) (concluding that one cannot appeal district court's review of justice court's judgment unless validity or constitutionality of ordinance or statute was at issue). Because Maxfield appealed the justice court's decision to district court and the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance was not raised or ruled upon, he has exhausted his right of appeal.

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.