State of Utah v. Goff

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Roger Becker Goff,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 990722-CA

F I L E D
June 8, 2000
  2000 UT App 177 -----

Fourth District, Provo Department
The Honorable Ray M. Harding

Attorneys:
Roger Becker Goff, Orem, Appellant Pro Se
Jan Graham and J. Frederic Voros, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals his conviction of several counts of securities fraud and of selling unregistered securities, challenging the district court's jurisdiction. We affirm.

A person is subject to criminal prosecution for certain violations of the Utah Uniform Securities Act if he or she "sell[s] or offer[s] to sell [securities] when: (a) an offer to sell is made in this state[.]" Utah Code Ann. § 61-1-26 (Supp. 1999). The State, which prosecuted appellant for violations of the Utah Uniform Securities Act pursuant to its authority under Utah Code Ann. § 77-1-5 (1999), presented evidence that appellant made an offer to sell and actually sold securities in Utah. Accordingly, the fourth district court of the State of Utah, which has original jurisdiction in all criminal matters "not excepted in the Utah Constitution and not prohibited by law," Utah Code Ann. § 78-3-4 (1996), properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction in the case. Appellant identifies no constitutional exception or legal prohibition to the trial court's jurisdiction.

Moreover, it is well-settled that a trial court has personal jurisdiction over a criminal defendant who is physically present in the state. See State v. Amoroso, 1999 UT App 60,¶8 n.3, 975 P.2d 505 (trial court's failure to assert personal jurisdiction over defendants based on presence in Utah was plain error). Appellant asserts that, regardless of his physical presence within the boundaries of the state, the "forum state" lacks personal jurisdiction over him because he does not have the requisite minimum contacts with the "forum state" under the state's long-arm statute. In making this argument, appellant fails to identify any cognizable legal distinction between the state of Utah and the "forum state" of Utah. Appellant also fails to acknowledge that "civil 'minimum contacts' analysis has no place in determining whether a state may assert criminal personal jurisdiction over a . . . defendant." Id. at ¶11. A criminal defendant's physical presence is sufficient to confer jurisdiction, "'regardless of how his appearance was obtained.'" Id. at ¶12 n.5 (quoting United States v. Lussier, 929 F.2d 25, 26 (1st Cir. 1991) (per curiam)). Appellant was physically present during the proceedings against him. Accordingly, the trial court properly exercised personal jurisdiction over appellant.

Affirmed.
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge
 
 
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge