P.F.B. v. State (In re P.F.B.)

P.F.B. v. State (In re P.F.B.)

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, in the interest of P.F.B.,
a person under eighteen years of age.

_____________________________

P.F.B.,
Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,
Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020675-CA
 

F I L E D
(May 8, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 140

 

-----

Second District Juvenile, Ogden Department

The Honorable J. Mark Andrus

Attorneys: Dee W. Smith, Ogden, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Marian Decker, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Billings, and Bench.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on the State's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.(1)

The Minutes and Order entered on February 26, 2002, disposed of the case, denied the motion to dismiss, and stated that the "admissions are made conditionally preserving the minor's right to appeal the ruling" on his motion. The order notified P.F.B. of his appeal rights and was intended as a final judgment. The court also entered oral findings on the record at the February 26, 2002 hearing, in support of the denial of the motion to dismiss. P.F.B. filed a Motion for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on March 7, 2002, within the time that would be allowed for making a motion to amend findings of fact. See Utah R. Civ. P. 52(b). The motion sought further findings on "whether the legislature intended the Rape of a Child statute to be used against children under the age of 14," for purposes of clarifying the record on appeal. The juvenile court entered a Clarification of Ruling on June 6, 2002, stating that "[i]t was implicit in the court's oral and written findings denying the motion that the legislature did intend the sexual abuse laws, as other criminal laws, be enforced in juvenile court against persons under 14 years of age, just as for persons over 14 years of age." Even assuming that the motion tolled the running of the time for appeal until entry of an order disposing of the motion, the time for appeal would commence to run upon entry of the Clarification of Ruling. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b). The juvenile court did not direct the preparation of any further findings or order. P.F.B. did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days of the June 6, 2002 ruling.

On July 18, 2002, after expiration of the time for appeal, counsel for P.F.B. submitted a document to the court captioned Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order. This document purported to deny the motion to dismiss and reiterated findings previously stated by the court in oral and written findings. The juvenile court signed and entered the order on July 31, 2002, and P.F.B. initiated this appeal.

The February 26, 2002 Minutes and Order was a final appealable judgment when entered. Even assuming that the motion requesting additional findings suspended the time for appeal, that motion was resolved by the Clarification of Ruling entered on June 6, 2002. The additional order submitted to the court for signature after expiration of the appeal time was not prepared at the direction of the court and merely duplicated prior findings and orders. Contrary to P.F.B.'s assertions, the order was unnecessary to complete the record or to render the prior judgment final for purposes of appeal. The entry of an additional, unnecessary order did not extend the time for appeal, and the notice of appeal filed on August 15, 2002, was not timely.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

1. Appellant's response clarifies that the appeal is taken by P.F.B. from the disposition of delinquency proceedings and is not taken from any order in related child protection proceedings.