State of Utah v. P Goff, Jr.

Annotate this Case
State v. Goff Jr., Case No. 20010780-CA

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Preston E. Goff, Jr.,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010780-CA

F I L E D
(November 29, 2001)

2001 UT App 363

-----

Third District, West Valley Department
The Honorable Terry Christiansen

Attorneys: Preston E. Goff, Jr., Deer Lodge, Montana, Appellant Pro Se
Mark L. Shurtleff and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Jackson, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from a conviction of Attempted Escape from Official Custody, a third degree felony. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Appellant argues that he timely filed his first notice of appeal, thus the court should consider this "re-filed" appeal.

Appellant timely filed the first notice of appeal. Subsequently, he moved to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. This court granted the motion, dismissed the appeal, and remitted the case to the trial court. "Having remitted the case, this court lost jurisdiction over the matter and therefore the dismissal of defendant's [first] appeal became an adjudication on the merits." State v. Clark, 913 P.2d 360, 363 (Utah Ct. App. 1996). Appellant cannot now resurrect the same appeal by filing another notice of appeal. Clearly, the second notice of appeal is not timely. Further, the voluntary dismissal of the appeal was an adjudication on the merits barring, under the doctrine of res judicata, a subsequent challenge on the same legal basis. See id.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge


______________________________
Norman H. Jackson, Associate Presiding Judge


______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge

 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.