Rios v. State

Rios v. State

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Steven M. Rios,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

State of Utah,

Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030427-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 1, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 85

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Timothy R. Hanson

Attorneys: Paul Gotay, Salt Lake City, for Appellant

Mark L. Shurtleff and Jeanne B. Inouye, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Rios appeals from the district court's dismissal of his petition for extraordinary relief. Rios petitioned the district court to review the determination of the juvenile court to bind Rios over to district court for criminal proceedings. The district court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

Rios petitioned for relief pursuant to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 65B(d). Rule 65B(d) provides that a court may grant relief "where an inferior court . . . has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion." Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(d)(2). Rios asserts that the district court should be a superior court to the juvenile court, and thus should be able to review juvenile court orders for jurisdiction or abuse of discretion. However, the district court is not a court superior to the juvenile court.

The juvenile courts were established by statute. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-3a-102 (2002). The juvenile court is a court of record. See id. "The juvenile court is of equal status with the district courts of the state." Id. § 78-3a-102(3). Any order, decree, or judgment from the juvenile court may be appealed only to the Utah Court of Appeals. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-3a-909(1), § 78-2a-3(2)(c) (2002) (providing court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction over juvenile courts).

By statute, the juvenile court and district courts are equal. As a result, there is no basis for arguing that a juvenile court is an "inferior court" within rule 65B, or that a district court would have authority as a superior court over juvenile courts.

In the instant case, without "superior court" status, the district court had no jurisdiction to review the decision of the juvenile court pursuant to a petition for extraordinary relief. The district court was correct in dismissing the petition for relief because the court had no authority to determine the juvenile court's jurisdiction or review its exercise of discretion.

Furthermore, relief under rule 65B is available only where "no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy is available." Utah R. Civ. P. 65B(a). A bindover order is a final appealable order. See State v. Houskeeper, 2002 UT 118,¶23, 62 P.3d 444. Rios had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy via his right to appeal the bindover order. However, he did not appeal the bindover, and thus waived his right to appeal. See id. (stating failure to file a timely appeal constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal).

In the briefing on appeal, Rios attached two hearing transcripts to his brief as addendum exhibits. Neither of the transcripts were part of the record of this case below. The State has moved to strike these exhibits. In view of our disposition, we have no need to reach this motion. Nothing in the addendum bears on the jurisdictional analysis upon which we base our decision.

The district court's dismissal of Rios's petition for extraordinary relief is affirmed.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge