State of Utah, in the interest of M.M., A.M., and S.S.
Annotate this Case----ooOoo----
State of Utah, in the interest
of M.M., A.M., and S.S.,
persons under eighteen years
of age.
_____________________________
T.S.,
Appellant,
v.
State of Utah,
Appellee.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 20020041-CA
F I L E D
April 4, 2002
2002 UT App 95
-----
Third District Juvenile,
Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Robert S.
Yeates
Attorneys:
Scott L. Wiggins, Salt Lake
City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff, John
Peterson, and Carol L. Verdoia, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Martha Pierce and Tracy
S. Mills, Salt Lake City, Guardians Ad Litem
-----
Before Judges Bench, Orme, and Thorne.
PER CURIAM:
This case is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition for lack of jurisdiction. The order terminating T.S.'s parental rights was entered by the juvenile court on November 21, 2001. T.S.'s notice of appeal was not filed in the juvenile court until January 4, 2002, well after the thirty day time limit for filing a notice of appeal. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a). T.S.'s prior counsel filed a motion to accept the untimely notice of appeal in the juvenile court along with the notice. The juvenile court denied the motion and indicated that T.S. had failed to demonstrate good cause for extending the period of time to file the notice of appeal. All of the parties agree that the notice of appeal was untimely and that this court does not have jurisdiction.
When a matter is outside
the court's jurisdiction, this court retains only the authority to dismiss
the action. See Serrato v. Utah Transit Auth., 2000 UT App
299,¶7, 13 P.3d 616;
State v. Palmer, 777 P.2d 521, 522 (Utah
Ct. App. 1989); Varian-Eimac v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah
Ct. App. 1989). Therefore, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge
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.