State of Utah, v. Montoya

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

John K. Montoya,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990983-CA

F I L E D
June 22, 2000
  2000 UT App 193  -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Michael D. Lyon

Attorneys:
Maurice Richards, Ogden, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Scott Keith Wilson, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Bench, and Billings.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals his conviction and sentence, seeking to withdraw his plea of guilty to operating a clandestine laboratory, a first degree felony. We affirm the conviction and sentence.

Appellant asserts for the first time on appeal that his plea was involuntary because it was induced by "the representation of the prosecutor that it was her feeling that [he] would not go to prison, but rather would receive probation at sentencing." Generally, "a defendant who fails to bring an issue before the trial court is barred from asserting it initially on appeal." State v. Price, 837 P.2d 578, 580 (Utah Ct. App. 1992); see State v. Lopez, 886 P.2d 1105, 1113 (Utah 1994). The policy underlying the general rule is "that the trial court's attention should be called to potential error so that it may attend to it expeditiously and effectively, correcting any problems and obviating the need for appellate or collateral proceedings." State v. Irwin, 924 P.2d 5, 7 n.1 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). This rule applies to preclude appellate review of a guilty plea when an appellant has failed to file a motion to withdraw the plea before the trial court. See State v. Johnson, 856 P.2d 1064, 1067 (Utah 1993).

An appellate court may address an issue for the first time on appeal only if the trial court committed plain error or there are exceptional circumstances. See Irwin, 924 P.2d at 7. "Plain error" requires a showing of harmful error that should have been obvious to the trial court. See id. An "exceptional circumstance" exists only in truly exceptional cases involving rare procedural anomalies. See id. at 11. Appellant fails to allege, let alone demonstrate, that the trial court committed plain error or that exceptional circumstances exist. Accordingly, we decline to address his challenge to his guilty plea for the first time on appeal.

Affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge