Ogden City v. Edwards

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Ogden City, a municipal corporation,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Bruce Edwards,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020957-CA
 

F I L E D
(August 21, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 289

-----

Second District, Ogden Department

The Honorable Ernest W. Jones

Attorneys: Bruce Edwards, Appellant Pro Se

Michael S. Junk, Ogden, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Davis, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Bruce Edwards appeals from a conviction of two zoning ordinance infractions.(1) This case is before the court on its own motion for summary dismissal on the basis that the appeal is not taken from a final judgment. See Utah R. App. P. 10(e).

A defendant may appeal from a "final judgment of conviction" or an "interlocutory order when upon petition for review the appellate court decides the appeal would be in the interest of justice." Utah Code Ann. § 77-18a-1(a), (c) (1999); see Utah R. App. P. 3(a), 5. A final judgment fully disposes of the claims before the trial court. See State v. McMullen, 764 P.2d 634, 635 (Utah Ct. App. 1988); see also Kennecott Corp. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 1099, 1101 (Utah 1991) ("[E]xcept in a narrow category of situations, no order of a trial court is appealable until a final judgment is entered on all issues.").

Defendant was convicted of two counts in a four count information. The counts are based on the condition of Defendant's building during the same time period. Because counts three and four are pending before the trial court, the conviction and sentence on counts one and two is not a final judgment, but is an interlocutory order. Minute entries indicate the trial court has continued Defendant's trial on counts three and four pending resolution of Defendant's civil action and "pending appeal." Holding a claim in abeyance "is not recognized under our rules as a method of vesting appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory orders." Shaw v. Layton Constr. Co., 854 P.2d 1033, 1034 (Utah Ct. App. 1993). Similarly, in the present case, the trial court did not vest this court with jurisdiction by entering a conviction and sentence on counts one and two and continuing trial on counts three and four.

Defendant did not timely seek permission to appeal from an interlocutory order under rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Utah R. App. P. 5(a). This court may not suspend the requirements of rule 5. See Utah R. App. P. 2.

We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it is not taken from a final judgment of conviction. The dismissal is without prejudice to a timely appeal after a final, appealable judgment is entered by the trial court.

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

1. This appeal is from Defendant's conviction under the information filed in district court case number 021900420. Defendant also appealed his conviction under the information filed in district court case number 021899315. This court dismissed Defendant's appeal from his conviction in case number 021899315 because Defendant did not file a docketing statement.