State v. Robertson

State v. Robertson

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

State of Utah,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Michael Lynn Robertson,

Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040968-CA
 

F I L E D
January 13, 2005
 

2005 UT App 14

 

-----

Seventh District, Price Department

The Honorable Bruce K. Halliday

Attorneys: Michael Lynn Robertson, Provo, Appellant Pro Se

John E. Schindler, Price, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.

PER CURIAM:

    This case is before the court on the State's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    This case originated in the Carbon County Justice Court. Michael Lynn Robertson appealed the decision of that court to the district court. Following a trial de novo, Robertson was convicted of speeding. See Utah Code Ann. § 41-6-46 (1998). During the course of the trial de novo, Robertson filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that his right to a speedy trial was denied. This motion was denied. Robertson appeals this decision.

    Utah Code section 78-5-120 governs appeals from justice courts. See id. § 78-5-120 (2002). Section 78-5-120(7) states that "[t]he decision of the district court is final and may not be appealed unless the district court rules on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance." Id. § 78-5-120(7). "By enacting [section 78-5-120] the Utah Legislature . . . specifically and intentionally limited the issues that may be appealed from a district court's 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.

    Although Robertson asserted a violation of the right to a speedy trial, his claim does not constitute a challenge to the constitutionality of a specific statute or ordinance. Therefore, this appeal is not taken from a district court ruling on the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance.

    As a result, this appeal is not within our appellate jurisdiction. Once this court has determined that it lacks jurisdiction, "it retains only the authority to dismiss the action." Varian-Eimac, Inc. v. Lamoreaux, 767 P.2d 569, 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1989).

    Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge