State v. Meinhard

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---State of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jimmy Dean Meinhard, Defendant and Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20060567-CA F I L E D (July 28, 2006) 2006 UT App 320 ----Third District, Tooele Department, 971300122 The Honorable Randall N. Skanchy Attorneys: Jimmy Dean Meinhard, Draper, Appellant Pro Se Mark L. Shurtleff and Kris C. Leonard, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Davis, and Orme. PER CURIAM: Jimmy Dean Meinhard appeals the trial court's denial of his motion to vacate his convictions pursuant to rule 60(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. See Utah R. App. P. 10(e). Meinhard was convicted in 1999. His convictions were affirmed on direct appeal in 2000. In 2006, he filed a rule 60(b) motion in the trial court, asserting that the criminal court lacked jurisdiction because the information was defective, and thus, his convictions were void. See Utah R. Civ. P. 60(b). The trial court denied the motion, noting that a rule 60(b) motion is not an appropriate post-conviction remedy. Even if the rule 60(b) motion were appropriately filed in a criminal court, which is not determined here, Meinhard's motion would fail.1 Any objection based on defects in the information 1 Appellate courts may affirm a trial court's judgment on any (continued...) must be raised at least five days before trial. See Utah R. Crim. P. 12(c)(1)(A). "[F]ailure to make a timely objection to defects in the information constitutes a waiver." State v. Smith, 700 P.2d 1106, 1109 (Utah 1985). Meinhard did not timely raise any alleged defects in the information and has thus waived any defects. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of Meinhard's rule 60(b) motion is affirmed. ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge ______________________________ James Z. Davis, Judge ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge 1 (...continued) ground, even if not relied on by the trial court. Rynhart, 2005 UT 84,¶10, 125 P.3d 938. 20060567-CA 2 See State v.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.