State of Utah v. Love

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

William H. Love,
Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030052-CA
 

F I L E D
(June 26, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 219

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Judith S. Atherton

Attorneys: William H. Love, Los Angeles, California, Appellant Pro Se

Augustus G. Chin, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Orme.

PER CURIAM:

This case is before the court on its own motion for consideration for summary dismissal on the basis of lack of jurisdiction because no final order has issued from the trial court and on the basis that the issues presented on appeal are so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration.(1) See Utah R. App. P. 10.

Ordinarily, an appeal can only be taken from a final order of the trial court. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a). The only exceptions to the "final judgment" rule are a petition for permission to review an interlocutory order, pursuant to rule 5 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, and a certification by the trial court, pursuant to rule 54(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. Appellant claims the offense he is charged with is unconstitutional. However, in a criminal case, it is the sentence itself which constitutes the final order. See State v. Gerrard, 584 P.2d 885, 886 (Utah 1978); State v. Walker, 2002 UT App 290,¶11, 55 P.3d 1165. No judgment has been entered and no sentence imposed. Therefore, Appellant's notice of appeal is not taken from a final order and, absent the applicability of either of the exceptions, it must be dismissed. See Walker, 2002 UT App 290 at ¶13.

The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to filing a timely notice of appeal from a final appealable order.

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

1. We do not decide the issue of whether the issues presented are so insubstantial as to not merit further consideration because we conclude this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal.