State of Utah v. CundickAnnotate this Case
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
Troy Dale Cundick,
Defendant and Appellant.
(Not For Official Publication)
Case No. 990282-CA
F I L E D
(December 20, 2001
2001 UT App 405
Third District, Salt Lake Department
The Honorable Homer F. Wilkinson
Catherine E. Lilly and Ronald S. Fujino, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Kenneth A. Bronston, Salt Lake City, for Appellee
Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Thorne.
Appellant Troy Cundick appeals from convictions for two counts of Forgery, third degree felonies, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-501 (1999), and from a conviction for one count of Theft by Deception, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-405 (1999). We affirm.
Appellant argues the trial court erred by refusing to quash his bindover. In State v. Morgan, 2001 UT 87, 432 Utah Adv. Rep. 40, the Utah Supreme Court explained that "[a] defendant normally must seek interlocutory review of a district court's denial of a motion to dismiss a bindover order since conviction renders any defect moot." Id. at ¶7 n.1 (emphasis added) (citing State v. Humphrey, 823 P.2d 464, 467 n.6 (Utah 1991)); see also State v. Whittle, 1999 UT 96,¶13, 989 P.2d 52 (stating conviction renders error in grand jury proceeding harmless).
Here, following his convictions on the three counts, appellant raises his claim for the first time that the trial court erred by refusing to quash his bindover. Accordingly, appellant's convictions on the three offenses renders moot any error the trial court may have committed in refusing to quash the bindover. See Morgan, 2001 UT 87 at ¶7 n.1.
Appellant's convictions are therefore affirmed.
William A. Thorne, Jr., Judge
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge
James Z. Davis, Judge