State of Utah v. Bleazard

State v. Bleazard

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Blake Bleazard,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020613-CA
 

F I L E D

(March 27, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 83

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Dennis M. Fuchs

Attorneys: Gregory G. Skordas, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark Shurtleff and Joanne C. Slotnik, Salt Lake City,

for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on Appellee's motion for summary dismissal based on an untimely notice of appeal. Appellant contends that a motion filed pursuant to rule 10(a) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed within ten days of filing of the docketing statement. It is unfortunate that the motion was not filed until a great deal of resources had been expended on this appeal;(1) nevertheless, an untimely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction. Because it is jurisdictional, the issue can be raised at any time. See State v. Putnik, 2002 UT 122,¶10, 63 P.3d 91.

The Sentence, Judgment, and Commitment in this case was filed on October 18, 2001. Two days prior to sentencing, Appellant filed a motion to arrest judgment or, in the alternative, for a new trial. A motion for a new trial must be filed within ten days after sentencing; therefore, the motion for a new trial was premature and untimely. See id. at ¶7. Because the motion for a new trial was untimely, the notice of appeal was required to be filed within thirty days after entry of the Sentence, Judgement, and Commitment. The notice of appeal was not filed until July 11, 2002, well beyond thirty days.

The trial judge announced on March 14, 2002, when he denied the motion for new trial, that he would deem a notice of appeal, if filed at that time, to be timely. However, on March 14, 2002, the time for allowing an extension of time to file the notice of appeal had long since expired. See Utah R. App. P. 4(e). Therefore, the trial court did not have the authority to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal.

Because the notice of appeal was not timely filed, this court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss this appeal. See Putnik, 2002 UT 122 at ¶10.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. This motion is made after resolution of a motion filed under rule 23B of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure and after filing of Appellant's brief.