Logan City v. Bruhl

Annotate this Case
Logan City v. Bruhl

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Logan City,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Heinz Bruhl,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010537-CA

F I L E D
(December 28, 2001)

2001 UT App 412

 

-----

First District, Logan Department
The Honorable Thomas L. Willmore

Attorneys: 
Heinz Bruhl, Ogden, Appellant Pro Se
Lee Edwards, Logan, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant appeals the trial court's determination that he was not granted a new trial in December 1997. This matter is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary affirmance. See Utah R. App. P. 10(a)(2).

The trial court did not err in concluding that defendant was never granted a new trial. Clearly, defendant represented to the trial court that he was seeking a certificate of probable cause to stay the sentence because he was proceeding with his appeal. Because the case was pending before the appellate court at that time, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order a new trial. See State v. Brown, 856 P.2d 358, 362 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (stating "timely notice of appeal generally 'divests the trial court of further jurisdiction over a matter'" (citation omitted)). Further, the language in the order states only that the sentence is stayed pending appeal. There is no mention of a new trial in the order language itself. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to support defendant's argument that the trial court granted a new trial.

Accordingly, we grant the sua sponte motion and affirm the trial court's order.

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge