State ORS v. Plum

State ORS v. Plum

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State of Utah, Office of Recovery Services, ex rel. Stephanie Mazza,

Petitioner and Appellee,

v.

Torin Anthony Plum,

Respondent and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20020736-CA
 

F I L E D

(February 27, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 62

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Leslie A. Lewis

Attorneys: Torin Anthony Plum, Draper, Appellant Pro Se

Mark L. Shurtleff and Sandra Langley, Salt Lake City, for Appellee State of Utah

-----

Before Judges Bench, Davis, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Torin Anthony Plum appeals from an August 15, 2002, minute entry denying his "Response Objection and Request for Due Process of Law Hearing and Objection to Case." The appeal is before the court on a sua sponte motion to dismiss.

The State of Utah filed a complaint to establish paternity. Plum answered and denied paternity. On January 3, 2002, the State filed and served a "Notice of Results of Genetic Testing."

On January 11, 2002, Plum filed a document entitled "Response Objection and Request for Due Process of Law Hearing and Objection to Case." After the State filed a response and a notice to submit, the district court denied Plum's response and objection by a signed minute entry on August 15, 2002. Plum filed a notice of appeal.

An appeal of right may be taken only from a final judgment that concludes the case before the trial court. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a); Salt Lake City Corp. v. Layton, 600 P.2d 538, 539 (Utah 1979). The minute entry from which the appeal is taken resolved only Plum's objection to the Notice of Results of Genetic Testing filed by the State, and the paternity action remains pending in the district court. The order from which this appeal was taken is not a final appealable order. See Utah R. App. P. 3(a). No timely petition for permission to appeal from the interlocutory order has been filed or granted. See Utah R. App. P. 5(a).

Based upon the lack of a final appealable order, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal. See Varian-Eimac v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) ("When a matter is outside the court's jurisdiction, it retains only the authority to dismiss the action."). We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to a timely appeal taken after entry of a final judgment.

______________________________

Russell W. Bench, Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge