Sandy City v. Schmidt

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Sandy City,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Darlene Schmidt,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040015-CA
 

F I L E D
(March 25, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 78

-----

Third District, Sandy Department

The Honorable Royal I. Hansen

Attorneys: Darlene Schmidt, Sandy, Appellant Pro Se

Patricia S. Cassell, Sandy, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Jackson, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Darlene Schmidt appeals her conviction of speeding, an infraction, following a trial de novo in district court on appeal from the Sandy Justice Court. This case is before the court on its own motion for summary dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Utah Code section 78-5-120(7) (2002) states that "[t]he decision of the district court [in a case originating in a justice court] is final and may not be appealed unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." "By enacting [section 78-5-120] the Utah Legislature . . . specifically and intentionally limited the issues that may be appealed from a district court judgment." State v. Hinson, 966 P.2d 273, 276 (Utah Ct. App. 1998). Accordingly, "absent an issue regarding the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance, the decision of the district court is final and this court has no jurisdiction to hear an appeal thereof." Id. at 277.

Schmidt did not challenge, and the district court did not rule upon, the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance. Because there was no ruling on the constitutionality of the Sandy City ordinance under which Schmidt was convicted, or any other statute or ordinance, the district court's decision is final, and we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Norman H. Jackson, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge