Reddish v. Galetka

Annotate this Case
Reddish v. Galetka. Filed May 6, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Marvin Kent Reddish,
Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

Hank Galetka, Warden, Utah State Prison,
Respondent and Appellee.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990189-CA

F I L E D
May 6, 1999
  1999 UT App 145 -----

Second District, Ogden Department
The Honorable Michael J. Glasmann

Attorneys:
Marvin Kent Reddish, Draper, Appellant Pro Se
Jan Graham and Jeffrey S. Gray, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Jackson.

PER CURIAM:

For an order to be final it must "finally dispose of the subject-matter of the litigation on the merits of the case." Kennedy v. New Era Industries, Inc., 600 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979) (citation omitted). In other words, a judgment is final when it "ends the controversy between the parties litigant." Id. (citation omitted). If a judgment is not final, we do not have jurisdiction to review it. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a) (stating that an appeal may be taken from final orders only).

The order that Reddish seeks to appeal resolves only three of five issues presented in his petition for extraordinary relief. In the order, the trial court specifically asks for additional information on the remaining two issues: The attorney general shall respond to only the two surviving claims concerning whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance because of the potential conflict between petitioner's trial counsel and a defense witness. Because not all issues between the parties have been resolved, the order sought to be appealed is not final.(1) Accordingly, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 
 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Judge

1. There has been some question about whether Reddish was attempting to file an interlocutory appeal, because, in his notice of appeal Reddish refers to an interlocutory appeal. However, because Reddish did not file a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal and his notice of appeal was filed after the 20 day deadline for filing such a petition, we do not consider his appeal to be interlocutory. See Utah R. App. P. 5(a); see also, Utah R. App. P. 2. (precluding us from extending the 20 day period for filing a petition for permission to file an interlocutory appeal).