Draper City v. Barlow

Annotate this Case
Draper City v. Barlow

2001 UT App 391

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Draper City,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Matthew I. Barlow,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010426-CA

F I L E D
(December 13, 2001)

 

-----

Third District, Sandy Department
The Honorable Denise P. Lindberg

Attorneys: 
Matthew I. Barlow, Draper, Appellant Pro Se
L.G. Cutler, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Matthew I. Barlow appeals the decision of the district court after a trial de novo on appeal from the Justice Court of Draper.

"The judgment after trial de novo may not be appealed unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120 (Supp. 2001). "By enacting [section 78-5-120] the Utah Legislature . . . specifically and intentionally limited the issues that may be appealed from a district court's judgment." State v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 276 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, "absent an issue regarding the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, the decision of the district court is final and this court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal thereof." Id. at 277.

The record does not establish that the district court made any ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Accordingly, appellant's brief contains no challenge to a ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance and makes no argument that is within the scope of this court's appellate review following a trial de novo. The decision of the district court is final under section 78-5-120.

Even assuming that an appealable issue had been presented in this case, the notice of appeal was untimely. The time for appeal is extended by filing of a timely motion for new trial; however, Barlow's motion was filed beyond the time limitation in Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b) (stating filing of a timely motion under Rule 24 suspends time for appeal until entry of order on motion). The untimely motion for new trial did not suspend the appeal time, and Barlow's notice of appeal must have been filed within thirty days of the judgment and sentence.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge