State of Utah, v. Smith

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Thomas Smith,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010347-CA

F I L E D
February 28, 2002 2002 UT App 59 -----

Eighth District, Duchesne Department
The Honorable John R. Anderson

Attorneys:
Thomas Smith, Vernal, Appellant Pro Se
Roland Uresk, Roosevelt, for Appellee -----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals his convictions of Operating a Vehicle Without Insurance, a class B misdemeanor, and Driving Without a License, a class C misdemeanor. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary dismissal.

This case originated in the Duchesne County West Justice Court. Appellant appealed and obtained a trial de novo in Eighth District Court. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120(1) (Supp. 2001). Appellant filed the present appeal to this court from the district court judgment after the trial de novo.

Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120(7) provides that no appeal may be taken from the judgment after trial de novo unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. In all other cases, the judgment after trial de novo is final and not appealable. See City of Monticello v. Christensen, 788 P.2d 513, 517 (Utah 1990). This court has previously stated that "'in order that the proper specific constitutional or statutory challenge be preserved, that challenge must clearly have been raised in and presented to the circuit [now district] court.'" City of Kanab v. Guskey, 965 P.2d 1065, 1066 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (quoting City of Monticello v. Christensen, 769 P.2d 853, 854 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (per curiam)). Furthermore, a statute or ordinance must be specifically challenged on constitutional grounds, and a vague reference to constitutional rights cannot satisfy the statutory requirement. See id. "A mere allegation of a violation of one's constitutional rights is insufficient to confer jurisdiction." Christensen, 769 P.2d at 854.

The judgment entered by the district court in this case does not contain a ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance that would serve as the prerequisite to this court's appellate jurisdiction. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120(7). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
 
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge -----

I DISSENT:
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge