Raiser v. Laycock

Annotate this Case
Raiser v. Laycock

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Aaron Raiser,
Petitioner,

v.

Honorable Claudia Laycock,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010897-CA

F I L E D
(December 28, 2001)

2001 UT App 413

 

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: 
Aaron Raiser, Provo, Petitioner Pro Se
Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the court on a petition for extraordinary writ to compel the trial court to allow petitioner to subpoena unnamed collateral witnesses.

The petition wholly fails to comply with Rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. Petitioner fails to identify which case before Judge Laycock he is challenging. Petitioner does not set forth facts sufficient to understand the issue presented in the petition. See Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(3). Petitioner does not state why no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy exists. See Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(4). Petitioner did not attach the order he is challenging, which is essential to evaluate the petition. See Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(6). Finally, petitioner cites no legal authority in support of the petition. See Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(7).

In this case, petitioner has another remedy because he may raise these issues on direct appeal following trial. See Hurst v. Cook, 777 P.2d 1029, 1034-35 (Utah 1989) (stating a writ is not a substitute for a direct appeal). Due to petitioner's failure to comply with Rule 19, and because he has another plain,

speedy, and adequate remedy in the form of a direct appeal after trial, this petition for extraordinary relief is denied.

______________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge

______________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

______________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge