Watkins v. BoP&P

Annotate this Case
Watkins v. BoP&P - Case No. 990889-CA IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
----ooOoo----

Charles Watkins,
Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

Utah Board of Pardons and Parole; and Hank Galetka, Warden,
Respondents and Appellees.
 

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990889-CA

F I L E D
(December 23, 1999)


1999 UT App 377

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki

Attorneys:
Charles Watkins, Draper, Appellant Pro Se

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

The order Watkins seeks to appeal was entered on September 10, 1999. He did not file a notice of appeal within thirty days of that order. See Utah R. App. P. 4(a) (requiring appellant to file notice of appeal "within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from"). However, Watkins filed a timely motion for reconsideration, which we construe as a motion for new trial under Utah Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.

Utah Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b) states that: if 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. A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of [a new trial motion] shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order of the trial court disposing of the motion as provided above. Watkins's October 13, 1999, notice of appeal had no effect because it was filed before he filed his motion to reconsider. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b). Because he failed to file a new notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for reconsideration, we are without jurisdiction to consider his appeal. See id.; see also Farley v. Sykes, 918 P.2d 895, 897 (Utah Ct. App. 1996) (concluding appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider merits of party's appeal because notice of appeal was not filed within thirty days of entry of judgment and, alternatively, because no new notice of appeal was filed after disposition of the post-judgment motion extending appeal time, as required by Utah R. App. P. 4(b)).

Accordingly, we have no alternative but to dismiss Watkins's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 
 
 

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood,

Associate Presiding Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 
 
 

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge