Garcia v. Tooele City

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Scott Garcia,
Petitioner,

v.

Tooele City Corp.; and Third District Court, Tooele Department,
Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030190-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 3, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 234

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Steven Lee Payton, Salt Lake City, for Petitioner

Brent M. Johnson, Salt Lake City, for Respondent Third District Court, Tooele Department

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Pursuant to rule 19 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure and rule 65B(d) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, Petitioner Scott Garcia petitions this court for an extraordinary writ directing the district court to dismiss his appeal from a case originating in justice court and to remand to the justice court.

Petitioner contends that he is entitled to an extraordinary writ because the district court is exceeding its jurisdiction by proceeding with a trial de novo. Petitioner contends the absence of a properly sworn information deprived the justice court of jurisdiction, the district court's jurisdiction is derivative of the justice court's jurisdiction, and the district court also lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner's contention that the information filed in the justice court was not properly sworn by the prosecutor is without merit. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 77-1-3(3), 77-2-1.1, 77-2-2(3) (1999); Utah R. Crim. P. 4(a), 5(a). Further, the district court did not exceed its jurisdiction by determining in de novo proceedings that the information was adequate. The petition for an extraordinary writ on this ground is therefore denied.

Petitioner also contends the district court is exceeding its jurisdiction by proceeding with a trial de novo because his sentence does not bear a date stamp indicating that it was filed with the justice court clerk. Petitioner contends his sentence was not "entered," see Utah R. Civ. P. 58A(b)-(c), a prerequisite to the district court's jurisdiction. However, although a date stamp indicating the date a sentence is filed with the clerk is preferred, see State v. Anderson, 797 P.2d 1114, 1115-16 (Utah Ct. App. 1990), Utah Code Ann. § 78-5-120(1)(a) (2002) does not require a date stamp. Further, Petitioner filed the notice of appeal with the district court and "is not in position to urge that it improperly took jurisdiction." State v. Telford, 93 Utah 228, 72 P.2d 626, 628 (1937). The petition for an extraordinary writ on this ground is therefore denied.

Finally, Petitioner petitions for an extraordinary writ directing Tooele City to cease filing informations that are not properly sworn. Even assuming the petition were procedurally correct, see Utah R. App. P. 19(b)(5), Petitioner has not established that he is entitled to such a writ. The petition directed at Tooele City is therefore denied.

We deny the petition for an extraordinary writ. Because we deny the petition, we deny Petitioner's motion for a stay of the district court proceedings. Finally, we deny Petitioner's request for a waiver of filing fees for the petition.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge