Wallace v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS ----ooOoo---William Wallace, Petitioner and Appellant, v. State of Utah, Respondent and Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not For Official Publication) Case No. 20090600-CA F I L E D (December 3, 2009) 2009 UT App 360 ----Third District, Salt Lake Department, 070917191 The Honorable Denise P. Lindberg Attorneys: William Wallace, Draper, Appellant Pro Se Mark Shurtleff and Brett J. Delporto, Salt Lake City, for Appellee ----- Before Judges Greenwood, Orme, and Thorne. PER CURIAM: William Wallace appeals the trial court's order dismissing his petition for postconviction relief. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. On appeal, "an appellant must allege the lower court committed an error that the appellate court should correct. . . . If an appellant fails to allege specific errors of the lower court, the appellate court will not seek out errors in the lower court's decision." Allen v. Friel, 2008 UT 56, ¶ 7, 194 P.3d 903. Because Wallace is seeking this court's review of a district court's decision, he must address reasons why the district court's decision denying his petition should be overturned. See id. ¶ 14. However, Wallace fails to address the trial court's ruling. Instead, Wallace merely reasserts issues listed in his petition and argued to the trial court. In doing so, he ignores the legal basis for the trial court's ruling. The trial court dismissed Wallace's petition because it was time-barred and procedurally barred. Wallace has not asserted any error in that determination but, rather, he reargues allegations of error in his criminal trial proceedings and appeal. He does not present any argument regarding why his petition, filed more than three years after his criminal appeal was decided, should not be subject to the one-year filing limitation, see Utah Code section 78B-9-107 (2008), or why any issue raised would not be barred. Absent an actual allegation of trial court error in the dismissal of Wallace's petition, there is no substantial question for review warranting further consideration by this court. Affirmed. ______________________________ Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge ______________________________ Gregory K. Orme, Judge ______________________________ William A. Thorne Jr., Judge 20090600-CA 2
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.
