State of Utah v. Putnik

Annotate this Case
State of Utah v. Putnik, Case No. 20010307-CA, Filed June 7, 2001 IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS


State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,


George David Putnik,
Defendant and Appellant.

(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010307-CA

June 7, 2001 2001 UT App 182  -----

Third District, Tooele Department
The Honorable David S. Young

J. Franklin Allred, Salt Lake City, for Appellant
Mark L. Shurtleff and Kent M. Barry, Salt Lake City, for Appellee


Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.


On January 2, 2001, Putnik filed a "Motion in Arrest of Judgment or for New Trial." See Utah R. Crim. P. 23, 24. He was sentenced on January 25, 2001.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, a motion to arrest judgment may be filed prior to imposition of sentence as was Putnik's. However, such a motion does not toll the appeal period. See Utah R. App. P. 4(b). By contrast, a timely motion for new trial does toll the appeal period. See id. Putnik's motion for new trial was not timely filed. In State v. Vessey, 957 P.2d 1239 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) (per curiam), this court concluded that a premature motion for a new trial in a criminal case, such as Putnik's, is not timely and does not extend the period for filing a notice of appeal. See id. at 1240. In other words, because Putnik's motion for new trial was not timely, he was required to file his notice of appeal within thirty days of January 25th, rather than thirty days after the trial court denied his motion to arrest judgment/motion for a new trial. See State v. Gerrard, 584 P.2d 885, 886 (Utah 1978) (stating in criminal cases sentence is final judgment from which appeal can be taken); see also Utah R. App. P. 4(b).

Because Putnik did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days of his sentence, we have no alternative but to dismiss his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Pamela T. Greenwood,
Presiding Judge

Judith M. Billings, Judge

James Z. Davis, Judge