State of Utah v. Barlow

Annotate this Case
State of Utah v. Barlow, Case No. 20000951-CA , Filed June 28, 2001 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Kathleen Barlow,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20000951-CA

F I L E D
June 28, 2001 2001 UT App 204 -----

Third District, West Valley Department
The Honorable Pat B. Brian

Attorneys:
Kathleen Barlow, Bluffdale, Appellant Pro Se
Kevin R. Watkins and Ryan B. Carter, West Jordan, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Bench, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Kathleen Barlow (Barlow) was convicted in justice court of two counts of failing to have her children in restraints while she was driving. She appealed to the district court and was again convicted of failing to have proper child restraints. Barlow appeals.

According to Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120 (Supp. 2000), Any person not satisfied with a judgment rendered in a justice court, whether rendered by default or after trial, is entitled to a trial de novo in the district court of the county as provided by law. The judgment after trial de novo may not be appealed unless the court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. (Emphasis added); see alsoCity of Kanab v. Guskey, 965 P.2d 1065, 1068-69 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (concluding that since defendant had appealed from justice court to district court and had not raised a constitutional issue, his right of appeal was exhausted and court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider matter); City of Monticello v. Christensen, 769 P.2d 853, 854-55 (Utah Ct. App. 1989), aff'd, 788 P.2d 513 (Utah 1990) (concluding that one cannot appeal district court's review of justice court's judgment unless constitutionality of ordinance or statute was at issue).

Because Barlow appealed the justice court decision to the district court and the district court did not rule on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, she has exhausted her right of appeal. See Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120. Accordingly, we have no alternative but to dismiss Barlow's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
 
 

______________________________
Russell W. Bench, Judge
 
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
 
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge