State v. Lamkey

State v. Lamkey

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Joseph L. Lamkey Jr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030416-CA
 

F I L E D
(December 4, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 422

 

-----

Sixth District, Richfield Department

The Honorable David L. Mower

Attorneys: Joseph L. Lamkey Jr., Gunnison, Appellant Pro Se

Mark L. Shurtleff and Laura B. Dupaix, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Lamkey seeks to appeal the Judgment of Restitution entered on April 30, 2003. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition on the alternate grounds that either the appeal has become moot or it presents insubstantial questions for review on appeal. The State urges dismissal of the appeal as moot; however, Lamkey did not respond to the motion.

In the Judgment and Sentence entered on January 17, 2003, the court set a sixty-day deadline for filing any restitution claim. On March 5, 2003, the State filed a restitution claim that advised Lamkey that any objection must be made in a request for hearing filed within thirty days. Lamkey did not request a hearing. Accordingly, on April 30, 2003, the district court entered a restitution order in the amount requested by the State. Lamkey filed a timely pro se appeal.

At a status hearing on June 3, 2003, held after the appeal was initiated, Lamkey's counsel advised the court that Lamkey disputed the restitution amount claimed by Allstate Insurance Company. The court then ordered a restitution hearing. At that July 15, 2003 hearing, Lamkey appeared with counsel. The record recites that the State and Lamkey agreed to a reduction of $2,000 in the amount of restitution to be paid to Allstate. This agreement was incorporated in an order entered on July 23, 2003. Allstate did not object to the reduced amount within sixty days, as required by the order.

Based upon the restitution hearing that resulted in an order incorporating a reduced restitution amount per agreement of the parties, and upon Lamkey's failure to respond to the sua sponte motion, we conclude that the appeal is now moot because all issues raised in the appeal have been resolved. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

_____________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

_____________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge