State of Utah v. Sposato

Annotate this Case
State v. Sposato. Filed November 12, 1999 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS


State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,


Daniel R. Sposato,
Defendant and Appellant.

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 981862-CA

November 12, 1999 1999 UT App 333


Third District, Salt Lake Department
Honorable David S. Young

Mark A. Besendorfer, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Jan Graham and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee


Before Judges Greenwood, Bench, and Orme.


An appeal may be taken from all final orders and judgments of a district court. Utah R. App. P. 3(a). Absent a final order, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction and must dismiss the appeal. See State v. Rawlings, 829 P.2d 150, 153 (Utah Ct. App. 1992). "[I]f a timely motion under the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure is filed in the trial court under Rule 24 for a new trial, the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order denying a new trial." Utah R. App. P. 4(b). "A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of [such] motion[] shall have no effect." Id. (emphasis added). In other words, Rule 4(b) "requires a new notice of appeal to be filed after entry of an order disposing of a post-judgment motion. Filing of a post-judgment motion of the types listed in [Rule] 4(b) suspends the finality of the judgment, and a notice of appeal filed prior to disposition of such a motion . . . is not effective to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court." Anderson v. Schwendiman, 764 P.2d 999, 1000 (Utah Ct. App. 1988).

Appellant filed a timely motion for new trial under Rule 24 on December 17, 1998. That motion suspended the finality of the conviction and sentence and rendered the notice of appeal filed on December 22, 1998, ineffective. Accordingly, we have no choice but to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

Pamela T. Greenwood,
Associate Presiding Judge

Russell W. Bench, Judge

Gregory K. Orme, Judge